Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dybdahl who wrote (18833)	8/14/2010 8:56:56 AM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

The key to understanding this, is that, as long as there is nothing damaged, the property owner doesn't lose any value, while the freedom to move around is a huge value. That's a value judgment. My values differ. The freedom to be king of your castle is really high up there on my list. I have to put up with other people when I leave my property. On my property, I don't. We all need a sanctuary, although perhaps some more than others. That doesn't mean that I won't share my space, only that I get to decide whether to share it. I agree that the freedom to move around is a huge value. But that freedom ends at someone else's property lines. Move around in public places all you want. Leave my back yard (if I had one) alone. so if the same rules would be applied here, it would produce more damage. There is a big difference between letting someone camp on your property and their having the right to do so. Most people in the US used to graciously grant access to their property. That has diminished quite a bit due to experience with damage. Most people are pretty nice and will respect other folks' property but there are enough that will trash the place to make property owners wary. They will judge whether to grant access based upon their impression of the people who want access. There is also a difference in the US that cannot be ignored and that is liability. If your camp stove blows up on someone else's property or you cut yourself putting up your tent, there could easily be a lawsuit. Why risk that? you may only pick the amount of berries that can be in a typical hat. Harvesting even one berry from someone else's berry batch is theft. And it's damned rude. What if the homeowner was counting on those berries for breakfast? For shame! ownership means that the government gives you some rights over a geographic area If the ownership has attached some covenants, then so be it. Many suburban and urban properties come with covenants. Usually they involve basketball hoops, lawns, and colors. I cannot imagine a covenant that would allow trespassers and thieves. <g>

To: dybdahl who wrote (18833)	8/14/2010 3:00:57 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

The key to understanding this, is that, as long as there is nothing damaged, the property owner doesn't lose any value, while the freedom to move around is a huge value. I certainly can't see this. My little 5 acre obstacle course of a yard is, well, mine. To the extent a day's use of it is taken from me, even if that means nothing more than looking at someone's tent, I am damaged. In the US we have a legal concept known as "quiet enjoyment" under which land owners and tenants are entitled to the use of their real estate free of nuisance. I think I even remember an instance years ago where a property owner sued to have an ugly billboard adjacent to his property removed. I guess we just value our property rights here a lot.

To: dybdahl who wrote (18833)	8/16/2010 8:30:37 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Even if damage was not a possibility, the freedom to control access and use of your own property is a huge value. Which is not to say that its always and everywhere under any circumstances a value that overwhelms all others. It isn't. But it is an important value. A couple of good examples on restrictions on what I can decide on the property on which my house stands: There are also restriction in the US. I might be ok with (reasonable) safety rules and building codes, but other than those type of rules I think generally how you build your house should be none of the government's business (again that's generally, not always under every circumstance). In the US some of the type of rules your talking about would be a matter of private contract, with a home owner's association being associated with the house and with part of the contracts when you buy the house being a contract that you accept their rules. I have less problem with that to the extent it allows for diversity of the rules, but I'm not actually a big fan of some of what HOAs do.