Re: "Again, it's really meaningless to say that the public owns it."
>>> Why? It's a valid and oft relied upon legal concept.
Re: "In the end, it's the government that owns it."
>>> They are supposed to be handling the public's interests, for the benefit of the public and for future generations. That's what they are elected for.
Re: "You can say all you want about me having a vote that counts the same as everyone else, but if 51% of the people decide to use public property for a reason other than mine, than I really have no say."
>>> One, that's a straight Democracy (51% wins all vote/decisions). We don't have a classic Democracy, we have a 'Representative' form of government. For example: a fillibuster in the Senate can hold up a bill, even though 51% - or even more - are for it's passage. The Courts can overrule actions held to be inconsistent with our founding document, etc.
Re: "In the end, the individuals who claim a monopoly on force control the use of that land, no matter what I think, or what the majority thinks."
>>> So - if we've gotten away from the proper governmental ideals - work to overthrow the Government. You'd find yourself in the company of Thos. Jefferson, who believed a 'revolution' would be required every generation or so....
>>> As to the concept of 'public property' itself: The air is not owned by me, not owned by you... it is collectively the property of the public. Just because it isn't subject to private ownership, we can't say it isn't important.
>>> The 'air waves' (electromagnetic spectrum available for transmission through the air) are also owned by the 'public'. It could not be otherwise, because if everyone just started transmitting on any frequency they wanted to nothing would work... it would all be static.
>>> The 'public commons' must be managed for the good of the public... as Malthus pointed out. |
