[thomax]

Why should ownership of land be equal to the right to restrict access to said land?

Where I come from (Norway) a land owner needs a good reason to deny the public access to the land. Such a reason might be that the land is very small and surrounding a house (typically a garden), or there are crops planted or animals grazing on the land (typically a farm).

A land owner can't just put up a fence, but is free to develop the land (within county restrictions) or sell it and pocket the money.

Yeah, too bad for introvert billionaires, but hey, most people aren't and that's democracy for ya.

[lisper]

> Why should ownership of land be equal to the right to restrict access to said land?

For the same reason that ownership of a car equals the right to restrict who gets to drive the car: that's what ownership means.

> Where I come from (Norway) a land owner needs a good reason to deny the public access to the land.

Then no one really owns land in Norway. The government owns he land and grants people development rights.

One could argue that this is how things ought to be (e.g. http://www.henrygeorge.org/pcontents.htm). But such theories are historically unpopular in the U.S.

[anon1385]

The same applies in Scotland as well [1].

It's always interesting to see the reactions of people who view property ownership as some kind of natural law when you present them with systems of property ownership that differ on fundamental points. Property ownership is entirely a social construct that differs significantly across different cultures. I don't see what basis you have for calling your preferred legal system the one true meaning of ownership.

Nobody really 'owns' land anywhere. It's always a set of rights granted to you by the government, unless you are an absolute monarch yourself.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Reform_(Scotland)_Act_200...

[gabemart]

Land rights in Scotland are even less restrictive - the 'right to roam' encompasses most agricultural land. Naturally, people are still prohibited from damaging crops or interfering with livestock.

[lisper]

> Nobody really 'owns' land anywhere. It's always a set of rights granted to you by the government

The source of ownership rights is orthogonal to the meaning of the word "ownership". In common usage, ownership means: a perpetual and transferrable right to dispose of something as one sees fit. (Some would argue that the adjective "unencumbered" should also be added to the list, and that the existence of property taxes in the U.S. means that no one "really" owns land there either.) If the right is not perpetual and transferrable, then you are a lessor, not an owner. If the right is not to dispose of the thing as you see fit then what you own is not the thing but some sort of restricted use license on the thing.

[ThomPete]

So you are agreeing with the parent right?

[lisper]

Not really. I think there is a useful place to draw a line and call it "ownership" even if there are some restrictions involved. For example, I feel like it's fair to say that I own my house and the land it sits on despite the fact that I have to pay rent on it (property taxes) and I can't tear down the house and build a gas station instead. But IMO, one of the necessary conditions for ownership is the ability to restrict access. Again, I use cars as an analogy: if I can't lock the doors and prevent people from sitting in the driver's seat on a whim, I don't think I can reasonably say I "own" the car.

[geebee]

Ownership can be subjective, but I'd agree that you don't have meaningful "ownership" of the land if you have no ability whatsoever to limit access. There's a wide range of in between, though.

In this narrow case (public access to the Martin's Beach), I'd say Khosla still clearly owns the land. He's just not allowed to use land ownership to cut people off from the coast. The court has required an easement, based on historical access routes. Nobody is allowed to wander off that trail and hang out in Khosla's garden or living room. In this sense, public access is limited, and provided to the minimal extent necessary to ensure that public ownership of the coast is meaningful ("minimal" could be debated, some might claim that our ability to get to this coast on a kayak is good enough, but courts clearly have interpreted this to mean land-based easements).

My understanding is that in Norway and some other nordic countries, land ownership does not include the right to prevent people from reasonable travel across it. That may even include camping on the land briefly. That's definitely a more limited concept of land ownership than you typically see in the US, but even that doesn't really mean you don't "own" the land, as the owner clearly has greater rights to it than the public.

I don't think the car analogy advances the argument much here, as there are clearly different kinds of property rights ("if I can't lock the doors and prevent people from sitting in the driver's seat, clearly I don't own the lyrics to the song I just wrote…").

[ThomPete]

Sure so you have one definition someone else have another. The Norwegian model just have a different treshold than the US but both are not really ownership but rather as was said renting.

[thomax]

> For the same reason that ownership of a car equals the right to restrict who gets to drive the car: that's what ownership means.

To go along with your car example, there are relationships which trump ownership. In the US, if a uniformed police officer approaches you and requests the use of your car in order to prevent a serious crime, you must comply. The cop's dire need to access your vehicle trumps the ownership of your car. Sure, you still own your car, but somebody else needs it a lot more right now.

Same thing in Norway regarding land ownership. Sure, you own it, but public access to that land may in some cases trump ownership.

[lisper]

It's a fair point, but the ability of a policeman to appropriate my car under very particular circumstances (in an emergency or if I've broken the law) is very different from the ability of anyone to take my car (or even just, say, sit in it) whenever they please. I'll grant you that it's a difference in degree and not in kind, but personally I feel pretty comfortable drawing a line between those two situations and calling one "ownership" and the other something else (like a restricted use license) but reasonable people could certainly disagree about this.

[thomax]

Nice. We now agree that even though the owner of some property does not want to share, there are indeed circumstances where the owner must do so anyway.

Which leaves us with discussing what reasonable circumstance is.

You'd argue that fencing off a five mile long beautiful beach so that nobody else can enjoy this land is reasonable. I'd argue to the contrary, and it seems judge Barbara Mallach, at least, is with me on that one.

[lisper]

> You'd argue that fencing off a five mile long beautiful beach so that nobody else can enjoy this land is reasonable

No, absolutely not! I'm happy the judge rules as she did. The disagreement is merely about terminology. I just don't think it's reasonable to say you "own" land that you can't keep people off of.

[dalke]

Various laws restrict children and the inebriated from driving a car. Under your ownership definition, that means that the government owns the car, no?

If so, it seems like your example of what it means to "own" something is actually a counter-example.

[lisper]

> Under your ownership definition, that means that the government owns the car, no?

Actually, children and drunk people can legally drive, just not on public roads. There are a lot of restrictions on behavior in the interests of public safety that trump certain property rights under certain circumstances. That doesn't mean I don't own my car.

[dalke]

What about this counter-example - do you own a bottle of vodka if the government says that it's illegal for you to let a child drink it?

[lisper]

Do you own a gun if the government says it's illegal for you to shoot someone with it?

[dalke]

Your construction is "ownership of a car equals the right to restrict who gets to drive the car."

My mistake was interpreting that to include "where".

By parallel construction, "ownership of a bottle of vodka equals the right to restrict who gets to use the bottle of vodka", doesn't it? We do not allow children to use a bottle of vodka in the same way that adults can use it.

Your parallel construction should be "ownership of a gun equals the right to restrict who gets to use the gun", but you instead countered with "ownership of a gun equals the right to restrict how it can be used."

Isn't that a similar mistake to the one I made? Prohibitions on the target are "a restriction on behavior in the interests of public safety that trump certain property rights", and not a restriction on who can shoot it, no?

[dalke]

Indeed - thanks for the correction!

[gambiting]

No. Both children and drunk people can drive their cars whenever they want on private property. The government only says they can't do it on PUBLIC roads, because it's against the interests of the public. Your example would make sense if children and drunk people were prohibited from using their own cars even on private property, and that's not the case.

In some countries this may be different - in some eu countries if you cause an accident while drunk while on private property, you might be prosecuted.

[dalore]

One could argue why should people own land that was created before people existed? We can see the argument for owning the car, but owning land is like saying you own the air.

[krisdol]

I completely agree, but most people here are American.