pull down to refresh
In the current governance structure states formed and battles were fought amongst states for specific boundary. I think Ohio and Michigan had a battle boundry.
I understand your point but when a group of sovereign individuals come together and agree on laws that govern them what shall we call it?
If that's what had happened, it would essentially be like creating a big ass HOA that doesn't allow data centers. It's perfectly fine to grant easements to your property to others.
The problem is that not all property owners agreed to enter into that arrangement, which means other people granted themselves easement to property that belonged to none of them.
In my opinion, the better way to deal with nuisances is through strict civil liability enforcement and allowing markets to function. The cure for high prices is high prices, as they say.
This makes it sound like everyone has a price. But what if someone refuses to sell or allow easement no matter the price. Should the public work get cancelled because a few citizens want to live in the Stone Age?
Hahahahaha
The price of living in a free society is not imposing your will on other people. If someone doesn't want to sell then you have to move on to plan b. That's what it means for something to belong to someone else and not you.
There's no objective standard by which to judge preferences, so you let people do what they want with their stuff. That's how the varied wants and needs of a population are best met.
Sometimes plan B might not be physically possible. We are still constrained by the laws of physics.
It’s rare but it does happen. Thus another solution has to be found to these types of complex problems.
As an engineer I have seen communities who desperately needed upgrades to their water and sewer system but couldn’t get the work done because two landowners wanted more pay to grant right of way to the facilities we were going to upgrade. So now the rest of the community who signed the easements have to suffer with crappy sanitation infrastructure.
But I respect the right of the property owner to say no. But it just sucks for the hundreds that said yes.
But I respect the right of the property owner to say no. But it just sucks for the hundreds that said yes.
Exactly. None of us are under any obligation to like how someone uses their property. One of the most important rights is the right to be a miserable son of a bitch.
Unpopular but very very true!
Because it's individuals who have sovereignty, not states. States were not supposed to be able infringe on life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness any more than the feds were.
States' rights was a shorthand for there being some functions of governance that the Feds were not supposed to impose on the states. You could say the states were considered sovereign wrt the federal government but not wrt their people.