View Single Post
Old 10-03-2013, 12:02 PM   #172
calvin-c
Guru
calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 787
Karma: 1575310
Join Date: Jul 2009
Device: Moon+ Pro
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw View Post
Most property, under law, is indeed a set of rights, some of which you can assign, permanently or temporarily, to others. Even if you "own" a block of land, all that really means, under law, is a set of rights - things you can and cannot do with that property. You can rent that block of land for a period of time, during which you assign certain rights to the tenants, removing some of your own rights for that period, in compensation for which you receive money. Another example are mineral rights that can be, and often are, held as a separate property from ostensible ownership of the surface estate.
Not to mention that your rights can be restricted for what is deemed 'the public good'. Historical preservation that prevents owners from repairing their property? That's why I put 'public good' in quotes. IMO if the public wants to restrict rights on a piece of property they should buy it-but that's not how our government works.
calvin-c is offline   Reply With Quote