This is unfortunately pretty amateurish and circular.
> However, these were not real property rights, because the King or other political body almost always reserved the power to trample peoples’ property rights when it was politically expedient. In the Middle Ages “property rights” were thought to reside ultimately in the King or the sovereign.
No, the sovereign owned the property (i.e. had allodial title) and rights to its use were granted in fealty. These rights were not ownership rights, which is probably what the author meant by "not real property rights", and the King could "trample" these rights because he owned the property.
> Tort law makes no sense without property rights. If you do not own yourself or some property how can you claim to have been harmed.
Huh? This begs the question. We can recognize other sorts of rights, like the right not to be physically harmed. "Ownership" is unnecessary, and the argument is circular.
> You cannot buy a farm and then build a house next to your neighbor’s pig sty and then sue them for nuisance.
Actually, you can, and you may win. You might have to pay them to move their pig farm, though. This is almost exactly what happened in Spur Industries. v. Del E. Webb involving the building of Sun City, Arizona. [0]
Property rights, like all rights, are defined and enforced by a society according to whatever source of law it recognizes. The Romans required landowners to maintain the roads and to enclose their neighboring land lest someone drive their animal over it; we largely do neither.
3 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 14.7 ms ] thread> However, these were not real property rights, because the King or other political body almost always reserved the power to trample peoples’ property rights when it was politically expedient. In the Middle Ages “property rights” were thought to reside ultimately in the King or the sovereign.
No, the sovereign owned the property (i.e. had allodial title) and rights to its use were granted in fealty. These rights were not ownership rights, which is probably what the author meant by "not real property rights", and the King could "trample" these rights because he owned the property.
> Tort law makes no sense without property rights. If you do not own yourself or some property how can you claim to have been harmed.
Huh? This begs the question. We can recognize other sorts of rights, like the right not to be physically harmed. "Ownership" is unnecessary, and the argument is circular.
> You cannot buy a farm and then build a house next to your neighbor’s pig sty and then sue them for nuisance.
Actually, you can, and you may win. You might have to pay them to move their pig farm, though. This is almost exactly what happened in Spur Industries. v. Del E. Webb involving the building of Sun City, Arizona. [0]
Property rights, like all rights, are defined and enforced by a society according to whatever source of law it recognizes. The Romans required landowners to maintain the roads and to enclose their neighboring land lest someone drive their animal over it; we largely do neither.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spur_Industries,_Inc._v._Del_E....