Re: Overheard on the scanner

In article <ddfr-DBEF1A.09375708052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
David Friedman  <ddfr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> 
>> On an earlier occasion, weren't you complaining that the state wouldn't
>> let you pave/landscape/build some land that you owned in the way that
>> you prefered?  At the time, you seemed to be a believer in absolute
>> property rights.
>
>1. I cannot remember such a post--perhaps you could point it out.
>
>2. You can find my views on property in land--from the standpoint of 
>economics, which I think I understand better than moral philosophy--in 
>the chapter on the subject in my _Law's Order_. It's even available on 
>the web, linked to my site.
>
>3. You seem to assume that the only alternatives are absolute property 
>rights or no property rights, and that the relevant conflict is between 
>the owner and the state. But the state, in the sort of context you are 
>describing, is itself claiming a property right--the right to decide for 
>the owner how his property is used. What we have been discussing in this 
>thread is not private property vs state property but private property vs 
>commons.

As I recall, the slope of the land figured in to what the state would
allow you to do with/to it, and I tried to make the case that it WAS
a commons issue, as paving or excavating sloped land definately posed
certain threats to those downhill from you, and to a lesser extent those
uphill from you.

-- 
Please reply to:            | President Bush is promoting Peace and
Democracy
pciszek at panix dot com    | in the Middle East by selling Weapons to the
Autoreply is disabled       | King of Saudi Arabia.