Yup. So any way you slice it, my neighbor imposes costs on me. Of course, the fact that his exercise of his property rights might qualify as an imposition of his will on me and his other neighbors, is of no import.
This illustrates the problem with property rights absolutists. The exercise of property rights can and does impose costs on others. The unasked-for imposition of costs is a violation of my property rights.
It's beyond ludicrous to suggest that my neighbors and I have no legitimate claims to recourse if some guy on the block decides, say, to open a biker bar or brothel in his house. Clearly it's within his absolute property rights to do such things. And just as clearly, his actions will affect the rest of us -- not just our property values, but also things like our quality of life, and even safety. He has imposed definite costs.
As is typical with libertarian solutions, those behaviors that are detrimental to the community must be allowed at all costs, whereas community standards cannot be enforced, because it's "legislating morality."
The basic premise of those who advocate absolute property rights is that we can pretend to live in isolation from those around us. In real life, the pretense does not stand up to serious scrutiny.
Many on this thread have staked out a libertarian (i.e., indefensible) position on property rights. Here in the real world, it's better to recognize that there are in fact legitimate constraints to the exercise of property rights, and to lay out a defensible position on how to maximize property rights, and keep the constraints to a minimum.
If the risks (what you're calling "costs") become greater than your return on your investment in property, you can sell it for property which has a more acceptable risk profile.
For example, if you can't handle having neighbors who use their property as they see fit, you can always invest in housing in a community where property owners have agreed to abide by certain conditions.
In a free society there is only one constraint (and it's not on property): you cannot trespass against or appropriate anyone else or their property without their consent. All other constraints are constraints on property and freedom.
As far as "the real world" is concerned, if conditions are unjust they should be made just. No small number of men told Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Samuel Adams that they should just "accept reality". Thankfully, they refused.
They wouldn't have acknowledged such unconscionable violations of life, liberty and property, and neither should we - no matter what the CHD decides is best for us subjects.
Only in your mind. You were never guaranteed the right to high property values, were you? I know I wasn't when I bought my house. Maybe you are a little more special than everyone else here.
This illustrates the problem with property rights absolutists. The exercise of property rights can and does impose costs on others. The unasked-for imposition of costs is a violation of my property rights.
gain, you are only talking property dollar value here which is subjective at best.
It's beyond ludicrous to suggest that my neighbors and I have no legitimate claims to recourse if some guy on the block decides, say, to open a biker bar or brothel in his house. Clearly it's within his absolute property rights to do such things. And just as clearly, his actions will affect the rest of us -- not just our property values, but also things like our quality of life, and even safety. He has imposed definite costs.
I will assume you have noise ordinances, that could easily take care of a biker bar. Prostitution is illegal in all but one state so chances are you don't have to worry about that.
Any people here from Nevada that have property rights issues due to the local whore house?
Monetary value is not a right.
As is typical with libertarian solutions, those behaviors that are detrimental to the community must be allowed at all costs, whereas community standards cannot be enforced, because it's "legislating morality."
I'm sure many Taliban would agree with the sarcasm in this remark.
The basic premise of those who advocate absolute property rights is that we can pretend to live in isolation from those around us. In real life, the pretense does not stand up to serious scrutiny.
Only people that can't mind their own business hold this view. I have motorcycles zooming up and down my street all day during the weekends. (1) Is what they are doing legal? No. (2) Are they destroying my property? No. Do I call the police on them? No. Why? Because they are not hurting anyone. You would turn them in wouldn't you?
Many on this thread have staked out a libertarian (i.e., indefensible) position on property rights. Here in the real world, it's better to recognize that there are in fact legitimate constraints to the exercise of property rights, and to lay out a defensible position on how to maximize property rights, and keep the constraints to a minimum.
Same thing could be said for gun rights, 20,000 laws ago.