Silicon Valley Billionaire Battles Surfers Over Beach Access

Re:Silicon Valley Billionaire Battles Surfers Over Beach Access by tn13 on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @06:55PM (#7707649)

There is nothing unpopular about your opinion. Everyone agrees that property rights are important. But in number of cases property rights also conflicts in a way it is hard to resolve. For example you may have a smoke emitting chimney in your house which spoils the air for your neighbor. In this case your neighbor too has a good case against you because your activities in your property infringe on your neighbor's property rights.

In this particular case I think Vinod has the right to block the access to beach from his property. But at the same time Government has a responsibility to see how an access to the beach may be provided.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Silicon Valley Billionaire Battles Surfers Over Beach Access by vidarh on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @07:34PM (#7707807)

> Everyone agrees that property rights are important.

I think you will find not everyone agrees with that. Since well before Proudhon's "property is theft" (from "What is property?", 1840), there have been ideological arguments against property rights on the basis that the limit the liberty of the population as a whole. And while wholesale rejection of property rights is not common, it most certainly exist, and has a history pre-dating our written legal systems.

Careful about generalisations.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Silicon Valley Billionaire Battles Surfers Over Beach Access by lutorm on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @08:28PM (#7707980)

Well, those examples would probably agree that property rights were important in the sense of being an important subject, too... But maybe that was not what the previous meant.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Silicon Valley Billionaire Battles Surfers Over Beach Access by tn13 on Wednesday May 07, 2014 @06:02PM (#7712891)

By that logic we cant generalize about anything because there is some hippie out there arguing against it.

[ Parent | on HN ]