3 ms·
The problem with this reasoning is that it's based on the incorrect assumption that one can "own" land completely and outright. This isn't true since land owne
by qq66 13y ago
The problem with this reasoning is that it's based on the incorrect assumption that one can "own" land completely and outright.
This isn't true since land ownership itself is something that can only exist with the consent of the community. Unlike the fruits of one's labor, the modern concept of land ownership is just a modernization of the older mechanism of land ownership, which was enforced by the pointy end of a sharp stick. In that old model of land ownership, you'd have a lot of trouble holding onto your land if your activities on your land started poisoning the local water supply and ruining the surrounding land for everyone.
In the new model of government enforced land-ownership, you still have to treat your land in a way that's compatible with the needs of the landowners that surround you.
- jack-r-abbit 13y agoWe have codes and ordinances so people don't just go willy-nilly doing any old thing. I'm not against some regulation. So in most cases I would agree with you. But this isn't one of them. His locking his gate didn't poison anyone's well or burn down anyone's house. All he did was stop random anybodies from entering his land. He didn't even mess up the beach or anything. No surrounding land was touched. He locked his gate. The fact that the people were entering his land to get to a public beach is irrelevant to me. I firmly believe any land owner should have 100% full right to block any person from entering their land (aside from proper police authority). Just like many times before and many times to come... people are butt hurt that something they used but didn't own was suddenly taken away from them.
- qq66 13y agoIf someone buys every house around yours, do you lose the right to traverse their land to get to and from your own?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]