That’s another good question on this issue. Is there property which is valuable to society and places an obligation on its owner to preserve the property.
I’ll argue yes. Some objects (works of art being a prime example) do have a universal value that limit what their owners can do with them.
The way I see it, property ownership itself is a social contract. Even the most committed libertarians want enough government to exist in order to protect property rights.
So if individuals are asking society to acknowledge their property ownership then it’s reasonable for society to turn around and tell the individual what his obligations are to that society.
If, as you argue, the individual is paramount and society has no voice in the issue, then what keeps me from breaking into your house and taking “The Milkmaid” from your house and putting it in my own? If we remove society from the equation then I own the painting as soon as I take physical possession of it. It’s just a social construct that you have the legal ownership and I do not.
Modern conservatives argue that future generations or those living after they die are hypotheticals, so they don’t really matter. So it follows that hiding long duration time bombs everywhere is a morally neutral act. Though I accept and am unsurprised by their perspective --it follows from their moral philosophy-- I disagree with it.
Another answer to the OP is that markets are awesome, perfect and perfectly awesome. If you bury time bombs 30 feet under your basement and fully disclose their location (because information is perfect), the price of the property will reflect the future cost of bomb disposal. Property owners care only about the value of their property and the stream of services that it provides. So they naturally factor in future preferences, because that affects current property values.
QED!
ETA: Incidentally, Ed Zotti touches on some of these long term issues in The Barn House. See: The Brotherhood of the Right Way.
A Vermeer may be a special case, though, because people who don’t own it may still benefit from its existence on account of its cultural heritage value to the community. Consequently we might say that here is a case in which your ownership of the property does not carry with it a right to destroy it, because doing so will adverse affect other people. But the same wouldn’t necessarily be true of all your property.
The people who will inherit your property immediately on your death may well exist today, and indeed may well be immediately identifiable.
But, taking the general point that hypothetical future owners don’t necessarily exist (and most of them almost certainly don’t exist yet) and that non-existent people have no rights, doesn’t that call into question the assumption that your ownership of the property extends to the right to pass it on to your heirs? After all, immediately upon your death you won’t exist, and why should a non-existent you have any rights that need to be respected in the disposition of the property that you used to own? On the view that only existing people can have rights to property, none of us can have more than a life interest in any property.
It seems to me that if we accord people testamentary rights over property, it’s not an unreasonable quid pro quo that we can impose on them obligations not to destroy that property for future generations.
Don’t make that argument. It is stupid.
No, it may not. Membership of the group “people who will inherit my property” requires my permission, and you cannot force your way into that group to exert control over the things you claim will one day be yours. It is like some panhandler taking me to court for the money I “was going” to give them - until I say I’m going to give them something, they don’t have shit.
For example, here in the U.K., we have the concept of a Listed Building.
BTW with reference to the polluted land issue, surely you can leave the property to the State, who then become responsible for the cleanup?
The group of people who will inherit your property is likely very large. The only members of the group that you have the control over that you claim are those who will inherit it immediately from you. And, even then, you only have that control if you live in a society which grants you absolute freedom of testamentary disposition. Which is, for the reason already pointed out, necessarily a societal choice.
Assuming that the worst you can do is make your property worthless, the person who owns it after you is still not harmed, as long as they paid an appropriate price to take possession. The only person harmed is you, who now gets much less than the original value upon sale.
The person who owns it after you did not have their valuable property destroyed, because they didn’t own it when it was valuable, they only owned it when it was crap.
Where I live any environmental cleanup costs are attached to the owner. They must declare them when selling, and have the choice of cleaning it up first or trying to sell it to someone who is willing to undertake the clean up.
Failure to disclose does not exempt the prior owner from paying clean up costs once they are revealed. There are properties sitting unsold and abandoned because no one wants to take on the unknowable costs of cleaning up environmental damage from a generation ago.
These rules were instituted to stop those who cause environmental damage from just selling and moving to a cleaner spot.
Maybe they are identifiable, but until I transfer possession to them, they have no rights over my property.
The decision whether to destroy my property, or to leave it to someone in my will, is mine. Property rights include the right to decide how to dispose of property almost by definition.
[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
Modern conservatives argue that future generations or those living after they die are hypotheticals, so they don’t really matter. So it follows that hiding long duration time bombs everywhere is a morally neutral act.
[/QUOTE]
Who said anything about “everywhere”? We are talking about my property only.
If you mean laws against man-traps and booby traps on private property, that is a separate issue.
Regards,
Shodan
Bingo. That’s how a system of private property sets up incentives to protect uniquely valuable property – by the very fact of assigning value. Most owners would not want to harm themselves or their heirs by throwing money away for nothing.
Certainly, there are exceptions. No system is foolproof, though, and just as private property admits to the possibility of an irrationally self-destructive owner, a system of public stewardship over unique property is likewise vulnerable to the possibility that government might act self-destructively (think of the Taliban destroying those ancient statues).
Then no doubt you’ll have an easy time pointing out its errors. Please do so.
Even if it were possible to completely keep all toxic waste on your property, you have still ruined that land for the foreseeable future, making it totally useless to anybody, heir or buyer, and you have fucked up the property values of all land near yours. If your philosophy is that it’s o.k. to fuck up your land and just move on to fuck up some other property, then know that even the staunchest of theoretical Libertarian neighbors are going to raise a mighty big stink of their own when you try to assert your gawd-given property rights in their neighborhood.
It’s not. He’s essentially correct. I own the radishes I grow on my property. But if it’s wheat instead, then we have well-known precedent that my ownership rights can be vitiated.
And of course if it’s cannabis, my ownership rights are generally non-existent. There’s also some problematic outcomes associated with poppies.
I want to argue that ownership is some sort of a natural law, but that way lies madness. So, he’s right.
I will argue that as a matter of wise social policy, we should always begin with a strong presumption of vibrant personal ownership, and accept any laws that weaken those rights only after they meet a heavy burden of persuasion. But in the end, he’s right.
It’s an opportunity loss. You didn’t own the value of the property but my actions made it impossible for you to ever do so - I took away your opportunity.
Or there’s the legal principle of entail which has been around for centuries.
Are you talking about real property now, or a ham sandwich? Because, you just took away my opportunity to eat that sandwich, or sit in seat #14 on the 2:30pm crosstown bus, or be the 2nd car waiting for the red light to change instead of the 3rd car.
Frankly, by keeping your property nice, you’ve taken away my opportunity to own a crappy piece of land, since I can’t afford a nice one.
Every choice you make affects the opportunities of the people around you, some for the better, some for the worse, that’s how opportunity works.
Because it is a specifically and deliberately meaningless statement. It reduces the subject to Bricker’s level - a mere question of what has been decided by others rather than whether or not they should. To me, something like Wickard v. Filburn is obscene - the use of the government to ban people from providing for themselves to prop up demand for a product. It’s like something out of The Midas Plague. To start talking about the social contract is to merely shrug and say “it is what it is”.
Agreed. I’m not suggesting we can or should forego any opportunity loss. I’m thinking we should consider whether there’s an upper limit and, if so, where that upper limit lies.