Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyone else? -what about animals, flora, ecosystems?
Whether flora and fauna count as "individuals with natural rights" is a whole different topic better suited for the Philosophy section. For this discussion, we'll stick to people, m'kay?
If the person who owns the land is IN NO WAY HARMING any other PERSON, what does it matter what they do with their land? I realize you're hoping to use the "spill toxic waste into stream" argument, but that initiates force and does harm, and that would be somebody distinctly violating the NAP.
So back to the question - if the person who owns the land is following the NAP and not single other person is harmed by their use of their land, why do you care?
There's that rigid Libertarian thinking- land issues are situation dependent.
No they aren't. Property rights, like any and all natural rights, are yours until you forfeit them by initiations of force against others. If a land owner does something harmful to other people with their land use, tha is initiation of force and they are forfeiting their rights. But if they do not harm other people, whatever they do is within their natural individual right to own and make use of property.
The only situation is if they are harming other people somehow. If yes, that's bad; if no, they're good to go.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.