Abstract
The preservationist duties that conservationists would lay upon landowners to protect the natural environment obviously interfere with what those people do with their land. That is often taken to be an equally obvious ‐ albeit possibly justifiable ‐ violation of their rights in that property. But to say that, as landowners often do, would be to imply that property rights somehow embrace a ‘right to destroy’. Closer inspection suggests that they do not. That would be a further right, additional to and independent of all the component rights standardly associated with the right to private property. A right to destroy is implicit neither in the concept nor in the justifications of property rights, as they are standardly conceived. Conservationist policies cannot, therefore, properly be opposed on the grounds that they would necessarily violate people's property rights.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have