I’m confused by this statement. You don’t have an inalienable right to keep the area around your home exactly how you want it either. That’s a positive right and requires taking the rights of others, for example by enforcement of zoning laws that affect land owned by other people.
Negative right: nobody must do something to me.
The right of self-governance is a negative right. I can see how it can be confusing since you can re-phrase anything as either positive or a negative action e.g. "you must stop stealing my stuff so property is a positive right" and "you should not deny my need for healthcare ergo it's a negative right" so here is a trick you can use to distinguish one from another: a negative right will remain even in the absence of all other people while a positive right will disappear in such a case.
So, for this case, the right of self-governance will remain if everyone else disappears since you can still make laws, obey them and enforce them on yourself thus it's a negative right.
"I have the right to tell you what you can and can't build in my neighborhood."
Which one is positive and which is negative?
> Also the former does not exist in reality
Irrelevant, we're discussing how things should work not how they are.
This is really such a silly and pointless thread.
2) Property is delimited in scope. You own your parcel. You do not own the neighborhood, even partially. If someone else wants to put up dense housing on their parcels, their property, there is no negative-right violation against you. You are, at that point, just a rent-seeking highway robber.
> If someone else wants to put up dense housing on their parcels, their property, there is no negative-right violation against you.
That's another POV you are entitled to but the courts found otherwise in the Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.
My "faith" doesn't matter. The logic of the argument matters. And frankly, you don't seem to be putting forward very logical arguments.
>> If someone else wants to put up dense housing on their parcels, their property, there is no negative-right violation against you.
> That's another POV you are entitled to but the courts found otherwise in the Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.
That's not what the court found in that case. In that case, the court found that zoning was a valid extension of the authority of local governments. Local governments do not create negative-rights claims. Indeed, the zoning ordinance in question didn't even purport to do so.
Now, I've never been arguing that local governments lack the authority to pass zoning restrictions, even if I think some zoning is bad substantively. I've been arguing that you, as a private individual, do not have a negative right to make up your own personal zoning code and enforce it on others, without the democratic authority of the local government.
My argument here is entirely consistent with Euclid vs Amber, and frankly, your reference to the ruling is a non-sequitur.
What is your logic and do you have an example of a negative right, that doesn't require enforcement?
And I agree that as a private individual I don't have a right to deny construction wholly. Same as I don't have a right to elect anyone. The community has the entire right, I only have a right to vote.
No it isn’t. We allow the state to enforce it on our behalf. In most reasonable states, you can defend against the commission of a felony on your property with deadly force.
Also, owning property is not a right. That’s the entire point.
I agree. I was responding, in context, to the idea that people should be able to live wherever they want affordably.