16/ You are unfamiliar w NH law. Completion is not a cause for a variance & is explicitly listed as a NON cause. There is a 5 point test that variances are tested against, and they must hit every prong. This inevitable variance request likely fails 3 of 5https://twitter.com/ArthurFrDent/status/1256620067577450501?s=19 …
-
-
27/ thoughts on property rights continue... it's kind of interesting that a lot of objection to my nuanced "property is a bundle of rights, and those rights can be traded and sold off, and often are" stance is from sort of trad-cons who want to get back to TRADITIONAL property
Show this thread -
28/ The objection is often formulated No, Morlock, a homestead / land is sacrosanct, and a man should own ALL of the rights to his land, and this modern governmental meddling this peels away "right to build in the 20 boundary" and takes it away from a man is WRONG and unnatural
Show this thread -
29/ It offends the same kind of people who get itchy re fiat currency or the "time debt transformation" where - as the objection says - banks pretend that money loaned out for 20 years is still usable now.
Show this thread -
30/ On a tangent, this allergy to complexity is a thing, where people can't abstract away from the concrete to truly understand things. As they say in coding: there are two types of people: those who understand pointers and those who can't.
Show this thread -
31/ ...but getting back to the core thing of "full and complete rights to land is the natural and normal and correct way to own land": no, that's not actually traditionally how land has EVER worked. That's a false retro-history. Land has ALWAYS been complicated.
Show this thread -
32/ Perhaps never more complicated than in Medieval Europe. It was exceedingly rare for a man to own 20 acres, everything on those 20 acres, and nothing off those 20 acres. Instead, the norm was overlapping sets of claims. One family's land might include:
Show this thread -
33/ - These 20 acres - and also a seasonal right to pick berries on the adjacent 5 acres ... but not more than 1 bushel per member of family - one share in the fish harvested from the stream - firewood from the adjacent forest, but only 1 cord per year
Show this thread -
34/ ...but the right to the 20 acres is complicated by the fact that of every 20 bushels of wheat harvested from it, 2 bushels must go to support the local convent, and 1 bushel to the poor house
Show this thread -
35/ ...and speaking of the poor, the widows of the town have the right to glean the fields after harvest, so while I can grow wheat on my land, and harvest it, I can't do TOO GOOD A JOB at harvesting it
Show this thread -
36/ Also, as the land fronts the road, there is a levy where 5 days of labor per year must be spent maintaining the road. Additionally, attached to the land is the right to have a market stall thrive per year in the local village...but the stall can't be more than 10' tall
Show this thread -
37/ ...lest it cast shadow on the adjacent stalls. Guys, ROMAN CITIES has zoning laws, specifying maximum heights, limitations on use, etc. If you object to zoning setbacks as a 20th century prog innovation ... you're not nearly as "trad" as you think you are.
Show this thread -
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
39/ sure, sure, you can have an ideal where all rights are bundled together and not unbundled ... but that implicitly depends on either people choosing the way you want them to, or forbidding trade. Which is bad. Trade increases utility.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
