Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
I have no argument with the fact that the world is interconnected. But when you declare someones property is a wetland you are infringing on their property rights to benefit society at large. That is fine. That is what governments do. I am just saying that the property owner should be compensated. Just like if you condemned his property to create a nature preserve. You would compensate him. But if you tell him to turn his property into a nature preserve you don't. Not fair.
|
The government should not be able to seize land without compensating the owner, but neither should a landowner be said to have the right to pave over the land if doing so harms others.
Quote:
|
Yes, but then again efficient markets is what you are shooting for. Free markets is usually the best way to get there.
|
A point of my posts has been that what you mean by "free markets" is not altogether clear. Perhaps I haven't been explicit enough.
Quote:
|
The problem is that a distinction is not drawn. If you own wetlands, and dump sewage into them and the sewage leaves your wetland and goes into someone elses portion of the wetland, you need to either stop it or cough up some dough. You should not be compensated for that. What you are doing is not just a nuisance but an infringement on either the public or some private owners land.
|
Which is to say that defining the extent and scope of property rights is tough.
