1) Property is a positive right. It requires that the state enforce your property claim. This does not come free; it requires taxes, a police force, etc.
2) Property is delimited in scope. You own your parcel. You do not own the neighborhood, even partially. If someone else wants to put up dense housing on their parcels, their property, there is no negative-right violation against you. You are, at that point, just a rent-seeking highway robber.
All rights, positive and negative require the state to enforce them so if we were to accept your definition, the negative rights would not exist and the whole positive/negative qualification became moot. You are free to not recognize the existence of negative rights but then how can you argue over the distinction between positive and negative in a good faith?
> If someone else wants to put up dense housing on their parcels, their property, there is no negative-right violation against you.
That's another POV you are entitled to but the courts found otherwise in the Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.
>You are free to not recognize the existence of negative rights but then how can you argue over the distinction between positive and negative in a good faith?
My "faith" doesn't matter. The logic of the argument matters. And frankly, you don't seem to be putting forward very logical arguments.
>> If someone else wants to put up dense housing on their parcels, their property, there is no negative-right violation against you.
> That's another POV you are entitled to but the courts found otherwise in the Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.
That's not what the court found in that case. In that case, the court found that zoning was a valid extension of the authority of local governments. Local governments do not create negative-rights claims. Indeed, the zoning ordinance in question didn't even purport to do so.
Now, I've never been arguing that local governments lack the authority to pass zoning restrictions, even if I think some zoning is bad substantively. I've been arguing that you, as a private individual, do not have a negative right to make up your own personal zoning code and enforce it on others, without the democratic authority of the local government.
My argument here is entirely consistent with Euclid vs Amber, and frankly, your reference to the ruling is a non-sequitur.
My logic is quite simple: positive right is a right to compel, negative right is a right to deny. It also makes the naming consistent. A right to compel disappears when there are no people to compel, the right to deny becomes absolute when there are no people to try the denied actions.
What is your logic and do you have an example of a negative right, that doesn't require enforcement?
And I agree that as a private individual I don't have a right to deny construction wholly. Same as I don't have a right to elect anyone. The community has the entire right, I only have a right to vote.
> Property is a positive right. It requires that the state enforce your property claim.
No it isn’t. We allow the state to enforce it on our behalf. In most reasonable states, you can defend against the commission of a felony on your property with deadly force.
Also, owning property is not a right. That’s the entire point.
2) Property is delimited in scope. You own your parcel. You do not own the neighborhood, even partially. If someone else wants to put up dense housing on their parcels, their property, there is no negative-right violation against you. You are, at that point, just a rent-seeking highway robber.