Boyd Smith wrote: > > Then the main difference between commons and private property is then the > difference of exclusive/limited use and open use. For example consider the > case of property lines extending midway into a road. Is that a case of > commons or private property? As far as actual ownership and responsibility > it is private property. As far as use it is commons. The town is in > Minnesota somewhere. I believe I will send an email and ask exactly how it > works and how they consider it.
A commons can be semi open use to. For example a park. The park may not charge at all for citizens of the venue, if for example reservation of the shelter for an event, and may charge for somebody who is not a citizen of the venue. Obviously, when the citizens decided to create a park, the may have had in mind their own enjoyment, but wanted to control others they felt they might not want to include or felt that they should help pay for the use of it, since the citizens paid to have it built and maintained. As far as roads go, that is the point. It is private property, that the original owner when he subdivided it, agreed to allow to be used as commons (or roads), as an agreement to extend that positive right to others use, in exchange for the positive right to do the same of others roads, as well as extending the right outside any property right to those who are citizens of the several states. By advocating open borders for the rest of the world, such advocate extending that positive right outside of any property right even further than that already extended to citizens. Very Marxist really, rather than just liberal as it was to extend it to citizens. It is a bit more complex than I described though, by law, as after use by the public, there is a claim of adverse possession too. Some will claim adverse possession an evil, but indeed, that was how private property was acquired out of nature to begin with, and is a very real part and necessity of natural law. By allowing trespass, such as open borders, there is a very real chance that another government could bring suit for adverse possession, and those who think they have private property will not. I find it interesting, that some open border advocates will justify one wrong (trespass) by their perceived wrong of controlling border crossings. Perhaps they do think two wrongs make a right? Goat
