[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.