Re: Overheard on the scanner

In article <g032bk$8i8$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Paul Ciszek) wrote:

> 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.

I think I remember the thread, but I doubt my argument was based on a 
claim of "absolute property rights."

-- 
 http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
 Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
 Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now