What is of greater interest to you?

[Person Man]

shoot.

[Four49]

I don't get the question.  Are you saying that property value goes up if it becomes exclusive?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I guess the second option since I want to have an absolute right to exclude others from my property, though I agree with Four49 that it's a strange question.

[phk]

The right to optimize the value of your property through having an absolute right to exclude others from your property

[dead0man]

I often wonder where questions like this come from.  What the catalyst was.

[Platypus]

     I guess the second option since I want to have an absolute right to exclude others from my property, though I agree with Four49 that it's a strange question.

Same for me.

[Smid]

The question is similar to striking the correct balance in terms of planning controls - should someone be able to construct whatever they like on their property, or should the concerns of their neighbours be factored into the planning decision, and if their concerns are factored in - to what extent should they be weighted? ie. should someone be allowed to build an apartment block or a factory on their land against the wishes of their neighbours? It's a question I wrestle with because obvious there's more freedom in allowing whatever to be built wherever, but at the same time, it isn't fair on neighbours to find their land suddenly devalued because of a decision made by their neighbour.

[minionofmidas]

The first is a legitimate interest, indeed a human right. The second is not.

[Franzl]

     I guess the second option since I want to have an absolute right to exclude others from my property, though I agree with Four49 that it's a strange question.

Same for me.

^^^^^^

[Citizen James]

Other - Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

I think public domain should be limited to things which specifically are used for the public good (i.e. freeways and schools) and should not be abused to clear land for private use such as building a new wal-mart.

I think reasonable zoning laws are acceptable.   NIMBYS do affect property values after all.

Whether or not either of these have anything to do with the question, I have no idea.

[Person Man]

You are taking this question too narrowly. What I am asking is not about real property, but any sort of entitlement that you have earned or been given a right to own.

Basically, what I am trying to figure out is that the role of property in society could be the crux of the entire D v. R things.

People say what separates them in the size of government, class wars or freedom... I think that if that was the case, Republicans should be the pro-choice, pro-gay party and that the Democrats would be the neo-con foreign policy party.

If the Republicans said they were the party of moral values, they would also be the party of universal health care, pacificism, as well as their anti-abortion and homosexual doubting. The democrats would be the party of business and sportsmen.

What I am trying to do is figure out what our great national debate is really about. I think it runs deeper than any one issue or any 15 second sound byte. Why do people line up in the ways that they do? I've been actually making dumb questions and dumb answers on this site in order to get people to think about this...but they haven't put that many resources into it.

[MK]

You are taking this question too narrowly. What I am asking is not about real property, but any sort of entitlement that you have earned or been given a right to own.

Basically, what I am trying to figure out is that the role of property in society could be the crux of the entire D v. R things.

People say what separates them in the size of government, class wars or freedom... I think that if that was the case, Republicans should be the pro-choice, pro-gay party and that the Democrats would be the neo-con foreign policy party.

If the Republicans said they were the party of moral values, they would also be the party of universal health care, pacificism, as well as their anti-abortion and homosexual doubting. The democrats would be the party of business and sportsmen.

What I am trying to do is figure out what our great national debate is really about. I think it runs deeper than any one issue or any 15 second sound byte. Why do people line up in the ways that they do? I've been actually making dumb questions and dumb answers on this site in order to get people to think about this...but they haven't put that many resources into it.

Its not a simple answer to give of why people line up the way they do.   60% has nothing to do with the actual issues, its more personal feeling then the care of nations best interest.

[dead0man]

What I am trying to do is figure out what our great national debate is really about. I think it runs deeper than any one issue or any 15 second sound byte. Why do people line up in the ways that they do? I've been actually making dumb questions and dumb answers on this site in order to get people to think about this...but they haven't put that many resources into it.

Yes, it's clearly our fault your questions are too off the wall for us to understand.

[Person Man]

Perhaps I am trying to get people to think?

[MK]

Perhaps I am trying to get people to think?

You over asked the question.

You are basically asking why do people stick to a certain set of political views.

I can't answer that, nor is there one answer.  Many factors come into play.

[Хahar 🤔]

The former.