Property rights - private and government
Re: Property rights - private and government
It still sounds like you're talking about an archaic royalty system to me... Also, in the US, outside of military bases and such, there is no environmentally protected land or park that people are prevented from entering. And rightfully so.
Re: Property rights - private and government
It's correct that Ye Olde English Property is still the basis for most of our property law. In that system, the king owned everything that was not deeded to various other nobility and reclaimed the land (and whatever else) when the land was untitled or there were no heirs to a particular estate.
The technical legal term is "escheat". Property is said to "escheat to the state". The central idea is that all land is owned by someone or some entity (which could be private or governmental), so it can be transferred to another owner when necessary or desired.
Whether land is federal or state (i.e., which "state") is more of historical reference and designation for the US. Other than the original 13 states, pretty much all of US land was once federal land, although a lot of it was allowed to be "claimed" and transferred to private ownership under various statutory regimes. Most of the unclaimed land was re-designated as state land as the states were created. Some of it has been reclaimed by the feds for various purposes, which would include things like national parks and military bases.
Also remember that a government, state or federal, is legally allowed to take private land by the process of eminent domain, although is required to pay "just compensation" to the owner and it has to be for a "public purpose", which is a hotly debated issue these days. As my property law professor used to say, though, "Just compensation is just compensation."
While one might debate whether states or federal governments should be allowed under law to operate as they do, it's kind of silly to pretend the law does not exist or does not apply to you just because you have a different idea as to how you would like law to work. Most non-lawyers (and even some lawyers) who babble on about federalism or Constitutional rights really have no idea what they are talking about.
The technical legal term is "escheat". Property is said to "escheat to the state". The central idea is that all land is owned by someone or some entity (which could be private or governmental), so it can be transferred to another owner when necessary or desired.
Whether land is federal or state (i.e., which "state") is more of historical reference and designation for the US. Other than the original 13 states, pretty much all of US land was once federal land, although a lot of it was allowed to be "claimed" and transferred to private ownership under various statutory regimes. Most of the unclaimed land was re-designated as state land as the states were created. Some of it has been reclaimed by the feds for various purposes, which would include things like national parks and military bases.
Also remember that a government, state or federal, is legally allowed to take private land by the process of eminent domain, although is required to pay "just compensation" to the owner and it has to be for a "public purpose", which is a hotly debated issue these days. As my property law professor used to say, though, "Just compensation is just compensation."
While one might debate whether states or federal governments should be allowed under law to operate as they do, it's kind of silly to pretend the law does not exist or does not apply to you just because you have a different idea as to how you would like law to work. Most non-lawyers (and even some lawyers) who babble on about federalism or Constitutional rights really have no idea what they are talking about.
-
George the original one
- Posts: 5406
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
- Location: Wettest corner of Orygun
Re: Property rights - private and government
> Also, in the US, outside of military bases and such, there is no environmentally protected land
> or park that people are prevented from entering.
You've never heard of the Bull Run watershed, have you? Provides City of Portland drinking water, established by federal legislation. Trespassing is verboten!
> or park that people are prevented from entering.
You've never heard of the Bull Run watershed, have you? Provides City of Portland drinking water, established by federal legislation. Trespassing is verboten!
-
IlliniDave
- Posts: 3905
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm
Re: Property rights - private and government
The government sold much if not most of the privately held land west of the Appalachians to homesteaders. Since it's public land I don't see an issue with an individual or entity using the land for personal financial gain to pay the public for use of it, especially in cases where the use of the land renders it impractical to remain freely available to all and/or poses a cost to the public (logging, grazing, mining, etc.); or that the public incurs a cost to make the land accessible (parks, recreation areas, monuments, wilderness areas, etc.).