Rights: Coming at them the Right way...

[anthony]

Heh. The title might get some attention and if it suggests I have "the right way", it is more of a question than an assertion.

I am looking to find a simple approach to what I think (essentially) isn't so complicated.

First I must query the use of 'negative rights', I've noticed recently.

Individual rights - to my mind - are positive rights. That they are even called "individual" is a redundancy (I am sure I read Rand to say).

Continuing in that vein, while we all understand the rationale behind naming these rights "negative" -i.e. that individuals have zero 'right' to be given any goodies or receive privileged treatment - it is only in relation to Statist-progressivism, and its so-called "Human Rights" (or 'claims', as I think of them) that the denotation has to be made.

In other words, Objectivists or libertarians are forced to juggle semantics to distinguish what we mean from the invalid useage(considering too, that the connotation of "negative" is -well -negative).

The right of an individual is freedom to act. That's it, short and sweet:

A positive right.

All his other rights derive from there. To restate what everybody knows, that right is not granted, conferred, allowed -or anything- by goverment: it is "secured"[AR].

But this presupposes a man or woman to be rational and moral. Being such, does he/she need to be also told (in qualifying addendum):

"Oh, but you have the right to act as long as you don't trespass on anyone else's freedom to act."

(Um, knew that).

This second is the corollary of the fundamental 'positive' right, no?

Which leads on to the Principle of non-Initiation of Force.

Do Objectivists really need to be told?

[deanwins]

whYNOT,

In your whole post, you did not mention property once. That's an issue.

Its not: "You have the right to act as long as you don't trespass on anyone else's freedom to act."

Its instead: "You have the right to do anything you want within the confines of your own property, or with the consent the owner of some other's property."

The concept of property is essential. Property is allocation of control of a resource to an individual (or a contractually shared group of individuals where percent ownership is stipulated).

[anthony]

The right to property is a derivation of the right to act, I think?

Maybe, I should have used "interfere" or similar - "trespass" confuses the issue.

[Selene]

She use negative in the following rights statement in the Lexicaon:

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

However, that is not how most people use it I think.

[deanwins]

Every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his.

John Locke, "The Second Treatise On Civil Government"

This is the basis of "negative rights" and the non-initiation of force principal. The concept of property (control of resources) is part of it.

[Selene]

Every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his.

John Locke, "The Second Treatise On Civil Government"

This is the basis of "negative rights" and the non-initiation of force principal. The concept of property (control of resources) is part of it.

Correct.

[anthony]

The differences and parallels between Locke and Rand I best leave to Ghs.

Simply, I don't think Rand ever employed the "body is property" argument.

[anthony]

"The concept of a right pertains only to action--specifically to freedom of action.[...]

The right to life is the source of all rights- and the right to property is their only implementation.

Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain himself by his own effort...the right to property is the right to action, like all the others". [Man's Rights, AR]

[anthony]

Keep It Simple, Stupid. Explain individual rights to a European 'humanist' or an African who hasn't even properly experienced or understood democracy - in one minute. There's the challenge.

Rand gives as the source of rights, man's life and equally man's nature.

Putting the ducks in a row -

Life (the given)

Man's mind (his nature)

Action

Property

Therefore,

To be alive.

To support life is to think.

To think is to choose actions.

To act is to gain property.

Metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and capitalism: the Objectivist rationale in a nutshell.

To explain it simply, one has to start from freedom: the only condition one may think and act under - and the only precondition to keep, and benefit from, the fruits of one's thought and action.

Hence, individual rights = freedom.

By definition, a rationally selfish man cannot accept any limitation on his positive right to act.

Again, being rational, he takes as given that all men share that right;

otoh, the irrational, self-less man - who hears he has the freedom to act in his best interest - well might exclaim:

"Great! In that case hand me your wallet or I hurt you."

I conclude that individual rights are a supreme moral principle - but not 'a morality' as such.

The morality is created and owned by each individual.

The purpose of rights is to secure such a man's morality from those who'd intrude on it, i.e. those immoral.

[dldelancey]

Tony,

You've basically described my approach to teaching rights to my son since he was a toddler, except I use even simpler terms, increasing complexity as he gets older. (I suspect he will start teaching me soon.) I've had an advantage, because he started as a blank slate. Of course, I've had to consistently make corrections depending on what he's seeing and learning in "the real world." I think it must be a tougher lesson for, as you say, "an African who hasn't experienced democracy" because you're talking about, I presume, an adult who has had a lifetime of being told something else entirely.

All that to say, I agree with the KISS approach.

[Mikee]

Tony,

"The right of an individual is freedom to act."

I like it but with qualification. In his rational self interest. Reason is the highest value and trumps NIOF. If we could truly identify a rational basis of rights I'm confident they could be applied to any actions and any living being. Including animals.

I think property rights are derivative of self ownership. My tools, my books, my home, my writings, my savings are products of my mind and my actions as a living being.

The concept of rights only has meaning when judging the actions of persons by other persons. Be prepared to be judged.

More later, have to work now. Thank you for the topic.

[anthony]

"Reason is the highest value and trumps NIOF". [Mikee]

It's what I think, Mike. Could Rand have made it more explicit, do you think?

Imagine you're teaching your son to drive. Since a kid way back, you have encouraged him to understand the mechanical working of the car engine and its controls. He's learned by example and advice every time he goes out with you driving- of what to do and when, and how and why you do it. Road conditions. speed, other drivers, caution, consideration and all of it.

Later, when it comes to formal driving lessons and then his driving test, he aces everything, unsurprisingly. He's probably a much better driver than most experienced adults.

So comes the big day when he first takes the car out on his own. As you hand him your car keys and he's almost out the door - do you call him back for one last command:

"Son, I want you to promise me that you never, ever knock over any pedestrians!"

?

No, I don't think so.;)

This is what I'm reminded by regarding the NIOF principle. By the time an Objectivist has worked through all the whys and wherefores of the philosophy, rational selfishness (life as the standard, etc. etc.) freedom and capitalism - it seems to me NIOF would be pretty much a superfluous decree to him.

[deanwins]

Capitalism is where a society practices NIOF. Understanding NIOF and capitalism go hand and hand.

[anthony]

Tony,

"The right of an individual is freedom to act."

I think property rights are derivative of self ownership. My tools, my books, my home, my writings, my savings are products of my mind and my actions as a living being.

Isn't self-ownership contained in the metaphysical nature of man? That is, as an autonomous being.

On the same page (322) of CUI Rand states

a. "The right to life is the source of all rights..."

b. "But in fact, the source of rights is man's nature."

Not a contradiction, I think, but a duality combining self-ownership (metaphysical) and those products of your mind (thought and action).

[anthony]

Tony,

You've basically described my approach to teaching rights to my son since he was a toddler, except I use even simpler terms, increasing complexity as he gets older. (I suspect he will start teaching me soon.) I've had an advantage, because he started as a blank slate. Of course, I've had to consistently make corrections depending on what he's seeing and learning in "the real world." I think it must be a tougher lesson for, as you say, "an African who hasn't experienced democracy" because you're talking about, I presume, an adult who has had a lifetime of being told something else entirely.

All that to say, I agree with the KISS approach.

I think no better lessons than those, early on from a parent. Specially the corrections to what he is being informed from everywhere else. Come to think of it, since few of us had that insight from our parents, what better way for a young person to quickly establish his sense of place in the world, his self-regard, and respect for others - than by way of grasping his inherent freedom to act, and so, individual rights. He is going to be some outstanding individual and citizen, Deanna.

[Mikee]

Tony,

"The right of an individual is freedom to act."

I think property rights are derivative of self ownership. My tools, my books, my home, my writings, my savings are products of my mind and my actions as a living being.

Isn't self-ownership contained in the metaphysical nature of man? That is, as an autonomous being.

On the same page (322) of CUI Rand states

a. "The right to life is the source of all rights..."

b. "But in fact, the source of rights is man's nature."

Not a contradiction, I think, but a duality combining self-ownership (metaphysical) and those products of your mind (thought and action).

Excellent quotes. Regarding Duality: More as an extension, as my hand is an extension of my arm. Tools are an extension of my ability to manipulate, grasp and mold my world according to the creativity of my mind. Writing is an extension of my memory, I can learn techniques to improve my memory by how I organize my thoughts in writing. External memory is not dependent on our emotional state for the ability to recall accurate information and past thoughts. These things are an inseparable part of our actualization in this world and we should have absolute sovereignty over them as if they were a part of our bodies.

[anthony]

Capitalism is where a society practices NIOF. Understanding NIOF and capitalism go hand and hand.

I don't disagree; it's a matter of the priority, though.

I'd rather put it as "Understanding one's right to action and capitalism go hand in hand."

Non-force initiation is either a corollary, or a consequent of that right to act. (Ive still to decide.)

[Mikee]

Capitalism is derivative of self ownership, the ability to accumulate, save and control (own) resources to whatever degree one is capable of. It follows naturally from what this discussion is about. NIOF is not the prime mover, NIOF follows naturally from an understanding of natural rights. It seems natural to assign great importance to NIOF because a person has to violate it to steal from or otherwise harm an innocent person but it is not a driving principle of natural rights itself. It is a mistake (which all libertarians make imo) to base natural rights on NIOF. It creates a passiveness which inhibits action and implies inherent value which does not exist.

[deanwins]

Now... here's the kicker that I deviate with Rand and other "inherent rights" claimers...

All of this stuff about property and capitalism... it only makes sense due to the efficiency gains in goal attainment resulting from specialization and trade.

If goal attainment for a person is not increased by specialization and trade with some other particular person (or life form Mike E, here's your integration across all life forms)... then this whole "inherent rights"/NIOF/negative rights etc breaks down and no longer applies. Recognize that each person has unique goals, and can change their own goals, even despite Rand and other "inherent rights" claimer's attempt to apply generalizations of human goals to all individuals.

So for example if a person has a primary goal to live in the wilderness... but he is too poor to be able to afford purchasing land from others so that he can do such... (and he predicts that he doesn't have the competitive ability nor ambition to gain enough market value to ever purchase the land...) if this is such a high priority to him over say any other goal, then potentially he might decide that he'd like to find ways to sabotage or kill others (in some way break NIOF) in order to attain his goal.

Hence I propose that instead we adopt the idea that there are many factions... factions that group together by common goals and means. Some factions are friends with other factions. Some are slaves to others... such as cows are to humans. Walla, integration across all life forms.

[anthony]

Ahh. Yes Mike. When a good principle like NIOF turns good and moral people into averting their gaze and blocking their ears from wrong or immoral acts; having to constrain themselves from interfering; and justifying it by telling themselves:

"I've called the police. I have done my civic duty."

- then free men arrive at a place where the freedom to act gets turned in upon itself impotently.

Instead,

"This person is in deep distress, I must help immediately- though it means doing X (contravening NIOF).

Or,

"His property or not, I won't walk by and ignore this brutal action".

Individual rights are, and must always be liberating, for the moral person. They must be feared, if not respected, by the immoral.

However, don't get me wrong, there is so little cause and so few contexts for your 'right to act' to ever contradict NIOF. It may hardly come up in a lifetime. And there are all manner of means that fall short of actually initiating force, while preventing chanced-upon abuse and suffering. Directly confronting, verbally (for instance) a man savagely tormenting his animal, might be enough. (If he turns on you physically, then of course all bets are off).

But yes: seldom a contradiction, but reason trumps NIOF like you say.

[Mikee]

Dean,

You neglect "prepare to be judged". Question: why do most other much larger predators, perfectly capable of killing and eating humans, avoid humans?

I've known people who live in the woods by themselves. They were in the interior of Alaska, spent as much as six months at a time completely by themselves, trapping, fishing etc. If you go away far enough where humans rarely tread you can have all the privacy you want without contemplating killing anyone. A hard life, takes toughness and intelligence and knowledge of the woods and creatures living in the woods. I've thought of it wistfully from time to time. I've also thought of being a fire watcher for the national forests (months at a time alone watching for smoke) but then I'd be working for the government.

[Peter]

Dean wrote:

Its instead: "You have the right to do anything you want within the confines of your own property, or with the consent the owner of some other's property."

end quote

I think it is more complex than that. Ever had a neighbor call the sheriff about your actions? "Son, turn it down!"

Dean wrote today:

All of this stuff about property and capitalism... it only makes sense due to the efficiency gains in goal attainment resulting from specialization and trade.

end quote

Here is an old letter I wrote that generated a lot of “boos.” (though no booze.) Sorry, it is a bit long. Astonishingly I think my old position may jibe with Dean’s so I may rethink it.

Old letter:

What do precedents and concepts going back to English Common Law like Easement, encroachment, rights of adjoining landowners, “Light, Air, and View,” the doctrine of “ancient lights,” adverse possession, and “coming to the nuisance,” have to do with a hypothetical Objectivist Government? Should the history of Western Law apply to the statutes that will be enacted at the State or county level under an Objectivist or Tea Party Constitution? I say they should.

A first glance it appears Ayn Rand is saying that a person can do on their property as they see fit as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others but are there subtleties involved? Did Ayn Rand think of these subtleties? Only to a limited degree.

“Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 96.

. . . . Any undertaking that involves more than one man, requires the voluntary consent of every participant. Every one of them has the right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his decision on the others.

end quote

And in her article, "The Left: Old and New" in The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, [p. 89] Ayn Rand wrote:

In regard to the political principle involved: if a man creates a physical danger or harm to others, which extends beyond the line of his own property, such as unsanitary conditions or even loud noise, and if this is *proved*, the law can and does hold him responsible. If the condition is collective, such as in an overcrowded city, appropriate and *objective* laws can be defined, protecting the rights of all those involved -- as was done in the case of oil rights, air-space rights, etc."

end quote

Based on these statements, I would say that air pollution as one example of the extension of *property rights* is addressed by her philosophy only insofar as pollution can be seen as infringing on individual rights, but Rand acknowledges that the condition could be collective, as when people live in close proximity. Then, *objective* laws can be written binding all citizens to its ruling, and this is not force but a concept called *precedent.*

My position is that a lot of common sense “trial and error experience” would be lost if we simply state as a part of Objectivism that a person may do anything on their property as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others, because your rights and the rights of others has ancient legal precedent that extends beyond simple property lines. It would be wrong to lose this knowledge and history.

In “What Is Capitalism?” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal Ayn Rand wrote:

The institution of private property, in the full, legal meaning of the term, was brought into existence only by capitalism. In the pre-capitalist eras, private property existed de facto, but not de jure, i.e., by custom and sufferance, not by right or by law.

end quote

Private property has existed in English Common Law for centuries, and the history of Western Law should apply to modern laws that will be enacted at the State, County or City level, in an Objectivist Government. In “The Structure of Liberty” Lon Fuller agrees, and he mentions eight basic rules of law embodied in Western Common Law and Precedent:

1. Having rules at all, rather than deciding issues of justice ad hoc (or, for the particular end or case at hand without consideration of wider application.)

2. Having clearly understood rules.

3. Having rules that do not change rapidly, so one can use them to make decisions.

4. Having non-contradictory rules, so it is possible to obey them

5. Having rules that do not require one to do things beyond one's power.

6. Having rules that are well publicized.

7. Having rules that are not retroactive.

8. Having rules where there is congruence between the rule as articulated and the rule as actually applied.

The result?

"The pluralism of Western law . . . has been, or once was, a source of freedom. A serf might run to the town court for protection against his master. A vassal might run to the king's court for protection against his lord. A cleric might run to the ecclesiastical court for protection against the king."

The rule of law developed as each of these legal systems, attempting to curry "customers" away from alternative legal systems that could be chosen, granted "benefits to their customers". Use our service, and you'll be sure of avoiding ex post laws. Come to us, and we make sure your legal duties are clearly communicated. Join us--publicize our rules and make them enduring.

Thus a polycentric legal system (market justice) was responsible, historically, for developing what is now known as the rule of law. Better, in a sense, to think of it as the unintended consequence of the rule of laws.

end quote

I see a good reason to rethink these *common laws,* and add them if appropriate to a more ideal Capitalist State’s, County’s, or City’s laws. Wisdom gathered into common law should not be lost.

What about situations like flooding along the Mississippi River, or New Orleans after a hurricane? In an either/or situation, should the Army Corps of Engineers flood private farmland or let private houses be flooded out? Or should the Government do nothing? I think Ayn Rand might say that only individuals should have built levees to protect their own property. If a person gets flooded out, then they should not build there again. But what if people have been building on lowlands like in New Orleans or The Netherlands for hundreds of years? I can imagine the similar kinds of either/or situations in large, crowded cities. Who does government assist first? Should Government assist at all? People have always wanted government to assist.

Without these ancient “rules, a judge would be starting from scratch. He would have no precedents on which to base his rulings. Without this use of *precedents* we could not have civil proceedings or criminal trials. Cases would continually go to appeals court or the Supreme Court.

There are thousands of real estate precedents, involving access to water, a view of the water or mountains or other landmarks. Riparian or waterfront laws are abundant in every state. The declaration that a person may do as they like on their property as long as they do not violate the rights of others is an oversimplification. No you can’t. And knowledgeable people are aware of this fact.

Though what she wrote should not be edited, Ayn Rand said that Objectivism is contextual. It changes. It’s politics gives us the framework of a government. Clearly, for Ayn Rand the U.S. Constitution is a less than perfect *example* of her philosophy “fleshed out.” Ms Rand thought that the U.S. had the best Constitution available and The United States was the best country for leading a life of freedom that she knew of.

I do not recommend amending her past writings for a changing world, but the Constitution HAS changed. It has been amended. It may be amended in the future. Therefore, Rand’s political *example* of the US Constitution is changing, though her philosophy may be in opposition to some of those changes, and to some of the interpretations by the Supreme Court.

State and Local governments provide a service that people have wanted from times BEFORE the Constitution was written. Local governments give us more services because of their different jurisdictions and duties. Further broadening or fixing of these duties is the work of the voters and the people they elect.

Reread the Constitution. Read your State’s constitution. They do not consist of one philosophical statement. Government consists of legal machinery and a lot of nuts and bolts, and not just a solitary, shining light bulb casting the shadow of the dollar sign. If you can rightfully do as you please on your property as long as you do not violate the rights of others, then drunkenness, rowdy and disorderly conduct, nude bathing and fornication are all just fine as long as you do them in your own front or back yard. Do amped up speakers blasting rock and roll rule your world? For me, they don’t. No thanks. Does anything go? Not on this planet. Not anywhere.

If you disagree with me, ask a realtor, a surveyor, the county commissioners, or the local sheriff about property rights. Buy and own some property. Build on in. Live on it. Your perspective might change from the doctrinaire and philosophic, to the actual.

The main precedent that I will discuss is *Coming to the Nuisance.* The Coming to the Nuisance doctrine provides a partial remedy to the problem I will call the “Right to a View.” An Objectivist might immediately respond, based on Rand’s writings that “There is no such thing as a "Right to a View." Oh, yes there is, just as there is a traditional right to water, sunlight and unpolluted air. If I buy the land with a view, I will want to keep the view. Laws like *Coming to the Nuisance* are tried and true prescriptions for living on earth in a community.

Here is a quote about "Coming to the Nuisance," discussed in, “The Antidote for Zoning: Bringing Objectivity to the Land Development Process” by David Wilens:

quote

"Coming to the Nuisance" means exactly what it sounds like: if a property owner is using his property so as to cause a nuisance to another property owner, then the property owner who was the earlier to start his particular use is the one who has the right to continue his use . . .

Because the right to property means the right to use it indefinitely, it follows that, once a property owner has started using his property in a particular fashion, he has the right to stop others from interfering with that particular use. This is the rationale behind the Coming to the Nuisance doctrine's requirement that, when uses of two properties conflict with each other, the use which has priority is the one started first, and the owner has the right to stop others from interfering with this prior use (the "first in time, first in right" rule).

Since the right to property necessarily implies the right to use it indefinitely, and since the right to use property indefinitely implies the first in time, first in right rule, it follows that respecting property rights ultimately means respecting the Coming to the Nuisance doctrine too. The two are inseparable.

end quote

Imagine that you find land with that view you desire, pay the large amount of money for it, and your property extends to the water. This ensures that no one can build between you and your view. By common Law no one is allowed to float a building on the water that blocks your view. There is NO problem because you've ensured of your view by owning the land to the water.

However, by possessing this "Right to a View," aren’t you blocking the view of everyone who lives in back of you, further away from the water? Yes you are, but by precedent this is fine. The right to a view does not extend indefinitely back from the view. By tradition it extends just to those properties closest to the view, be it The Chesapeake Bay, or The Rocky Mountains.

The view is better near the water. You will have paid more to be near the water. You expect to see the great view if that’s what you bought. If you did not buy waterfront property you expect to see the back of a house. These principles go back to olde England.

If anyone has seen the Sissy Spacek film, “Violets are Blue” there is a beautiful nighttime scene from a boat on the bay with the carousel going round in the background, and you can hear crowds of ecstatic children laughing. Suppose you say to yourself, I would like that property. You find the land with that view, spend the exorbitant amount of money for it, and your property extends to the water, ensuring that no one can build between you and your view.

An Objectivist might object that if there's a view that you value, but you are NOT on the water, then you have the right to get a contractual agreement with other property owners to insure your view, or buy the land that may prove to create an obstacle. I agree, but we need to think beyond our catechism of stock Randian phrases, and the idea that you need a contract with everyone who borders your property to live well, because you don’t. A right to a view is an age old tradition for those living near the water, and this principle should be kept.

Another example? You find the land with that view, and your property extends to within one un-built upon lot from the water, and you built your home. The “Coming to the Nuisance” doctrine ensures that no one can build so high as to get between you and your view, BECAUSE YOU BUILT FIRST. Is this infringing on the other property owner’s rights? No.

Scene three: You find the land with that view, and your property extends to within ONE BUILDING LOT from the water, and you built your home. However, there is already another one story home in front of you. The “Coming to the Nuisance” doctrine does not protect you, so you build a two story home, putting your living room with its better view on the second floor.

Do you now have any objective, legal right under the “Coming to the Nuisance” doctrine to keep the closer to the bay homeowner from building a three story home there, that blocks your second story view at a later time? Yes you do! Is that objectively infringing on his property rights? NO.

There are more scenarios but I will stop there. This is the sort of dilemma that flat-out statements of “rights” do not cover. Just as non violent *coercion* was added to the *Non Initiation Of Force* concept by Ayn Rand, the right to property also needs rational clarification. “There oughta be a law,” and there is. I found it in Common Law.

I and my family have been personally involved in this issue but I will not give the specifics, except to say I have been dealing with *set backs,* *easements,* *wetlands delineation,* perk tests, billboards which we own, rights to a view, and concepts like *Coming to the Nuisance* and *Adverse Possession*, which is briefly an Anglo-American property law, that means someone built too close, or on someone else’s property with or without the property owner’s permission, in good faith. *Adverse Possession* has a statute of limitation in most U.S. states that allows an adverse possessor to acquire legal title if the owner does not seek timely possession.

A quick and all too common example is when a ditch is dug for drainage and the ditch digger goes around a tree, but the rest of the ditch splits the property line. Years and years later a survey is done discovering the discrepancy that has been forgotten or never known by the current land owners.

Or, County ordinances might say you need to set your buildings back at least five feet from the property line, and using common sense this term is known as “set back.” To build four feet from the line you may need a zoning “easement” from the county and / or consent from the adjoining property owner, which again, is a tried and true prescription for living with neighbors. *Set back* is not an infringement on objective property rights.

Did Ayn Rand write or say anything about zoning laws? I would think she would be opposed to zoning laws unless the laws are objectively written and rational. Remember, she did write about the collective nuisance of living in a city (and the word collective was her choice of words.) Property rights have gray areas between your property rights and the rights of others. Zoning Laws can sustain property values, and stop coercive activities. Who wants a smelly crab processing plant next to their residential property?

Objective laws define the legal line between what may be considered morally wrong by different individuals who have different moralities, and legally wrong behaviors, that infringe upon legitimate rights. Many illegal activities do not involve the ‘strict’ initiation of force. Rather, they are considered coercive. I maintain that zoning can PROHIBIT coercive activities.

An Objectivist view should be that the proper purpose of laws is to guarantee your right to do what you want with your property subject only to the restrictions you have agreed to in contracts with others, AND in consideration of objectively held common laws and precedents. The purpose of zoning laws IS NOT to enable others o work through the government to tell you what to do with your property without your agreement. I DO agree in spirit, with Ayn Rand’s multiple definitions of property rights but I disagree on finer points that might be considered coercive in nature, in her strict interpretation of *absolute* property rights.

Just what is property? When someone owns property the land’s dimensions are strictly defined, by surveying. One could say that piece of land is five acres, relatively rectangular in shape, and borders three other properties and the road. However, there is a further dimension to land: The sky above it, the land below it, the surrounding view, and the air you breath.

Property is more than two dimensional. Let me enumerate some cases that illustrate more than two property dimensions:

Water and mineral rights.

Air quality rights.

The sky above. In other words, sunlight and rainfall rights.

Who got there first, or *Coming to the Nuisance*?

The right to a surrounding view.

And the right to a continuation of a property’s fair value.

Water and mineral rights. This is the easiest to defend property right because virtually everyone agrees, mineral rights under the property are justifiable, and require little defense. However, a corollary right is that no one on surrounding properties can legally pump out ground water until the water table under your property is lowered so much that you have no access to well water.

This issue recently happened in Somerset County, Maryland where a newly built state prison caused dozens of surrounding properties that only had “well water” to go dry, and it stopped Wal-Mart from building a distribution center in that County. And there have been many cases where corporations poisoned the ground water.

Another issue, is using up all the water in a river, or damming it. Should this be legal, if the river previously ran through your property? Not unless the property owner agrees. And there have been cases where individuals or countries drilled sideways under a neighbor’s property to steal oil or minerals.

Air quality rights. No one can deny you breathable air, by burning, building a pig farm, or a manufacturing plant near you, without your consent, if the land is zoned residential or agricultural, unless the pig farm was there first.

The sky above. No one may plant trees that extend over your property, or block the sun or the rain, with a building, without your permission, if the land is zoned residential, or agricultural.

And now my last, more nebulous concept. Does a person have a right to diminish your property’s value, because of something that they do on their property? Let us postulate that I have a Beverly Hills estate and The Clampetts move in next door and the nuisance has come to you . . .

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

I will put my more extensive notes culled from the “Ayn Rand Lexicon” on another letter.

“Ancient lights” is an English doctrine. It states that if a landowner had received sunlight across adjoining property for a particular period of time, that landowner was entitled to continue to receive unobstructed access to sunlight across the adjoining property. According to this doctrine, the landowner acquired a prescriptive easement and could not be prevented from access to light. However, the doctrine of ancient lights has been repudiated in the U.S. Law makers are of the opinion that this doctrine is inconsistent with the needs of a developing country.

The right of a landowner to unobstructed light, air or view may be created through the granting of an easement by private parties. It can also be through the adoption of conditions, covenants, and restrictions. A state legislature can create the right to unobstructed light, air or view by creating a right to sunlight for a solar collector. Similar right can be created by local governments in adopting height limits to protect views and provide for light and air.

A property owner may be prohibited by a statute from erecting a fence or structure over ten feet in height which prevents an owner or occupier of adjacent land from enjoying the light or air.

In Pacifica Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Wesley Palms Ret. Cmty., 178 Cal. App. 3d 1147 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1986), appellant homeowner’s association’s members owned single-family residences located uphill from respondent retirement community. These single-family residences had views of the ocean, Mission Bay and the city. The homeowners’ deeds protected the views from future obstruction. Respondent was granted a conditional use permit in 1958 to operate a retirement hotel on a 40-acre tract of land with landscaping and five-story building height restrictions. Eucalyptus and pine trees on respondent’s property exceeded the height of its five-story building 25 years later and obstructed appellant’s views. Appellant alleged that respondent was burdened with servitude to not permit any obstruction taller than its five-story building but was denied injunctive relief. On appeal, the court found that there was no implication of a restriction on the height of trees in the conditional use permit that limited the height of the building. The focus in the permit was on the aesthetics of respondent’s property, not on protecting the appellant’s views. The court inferred that the planning commission approved the mature height of the trees since it attached no trimming or other height restrictions. The Court affirmed the judgment and the retirement community’s demurrer to appellant homeowner’s association’s action was properly sustained, because statute or governmentally imposed conditions on development creating a right to an unobstructed view in the absence of any agreement. The respondent neither acted in bad faith nor interfered with any right where homeowners had no natural right to an unobstructed view.

[deanwins]

Mike,

Larger predators avoid humans because we have quite sharply naturally selected (culled) out all the ones that don't. Of course there are cases of animal attacks once in a great while. You say humans are smaller, and that animals are "perfectly capable of killing and eating humans"... but not really. Humans who live in the wilderness carry guns with them. I've even read news of a guy who fought off a bear by repeatedly punching the bear in the head (yea he did get pretty mauled up, but he was able to convince the bear to leave him alone). Because even in those exceptions where an animal does attack a human, we consequently collect the evidence, hunt the animal down, and destroy it. Furthermore, not discrediting animal intelligence (especially bears, wolves, and large cats), to them, I'm sure we look unpredictable and insightful as hell, and that makes them afraid of us, because they worry that we are capable of doing something that they couldn't predict that will hurt them. This worry comes from the cull I mentioned in my first sentence. I've walked through the dessert mountains in Arizona alone, I saw a coyote perched on a rock on the other side of a small valley... just sitting there watching me as I was path finding up the trail-less mountainside.

Large predators learn from their parents how to hunt and what to hunt. When they see new prey, they are very careful and cautiously play with it first. Punch the animal in the head, give it a few good upper cuts or temple shots... and it will quickly decide that it can probably find other food more safely. Get between a momma bear and her cubs... and that strategy might not work, you may find yourself fighting to the death.

[Mikee]

Dean, because of the consequences. In the case of animals the knowledge is in their DNA for the reasons you stated. Our "rights" are in our literature and in our laws and our constitutions because of the consequences of them not being there. Evolution is ongoing.

[deanwins]

Mike, Agreed. Back to Re: #21: "If you go away far enough where humans rarely tread you can have all the privacy you want without contemplating killing anyone. A hard life, takes toughness and intelligence and knowledge of the woods and creatures living in the woods."

But lets say one didn't think he could survive like that in Alaska. But he did think he could live like that in Hawaii... if only the other humans there weren't there. Then?

Tony: Please let me know if you think I'm hijacking your thread or would like me to post less frequently.