>>94
The concept of public property is flawed at the root. Right is an absolute claim. If two or more people have an absolute claim to the same property, and their interest differ, then who is to say whose interest should prevail? You say a common property should be commonly cared for, but the fact is ethical or not person A has just as much right to shit on it as person B to plant flowers, all that's left is for them to duke it out.
Reason can't solve this, the only thing left is contest of might in the government. It becomes a situation where might makes right, whether that be by vote or money or even guns.
As for my example, extreme or not that is a valid example for a right to live in an none toxic environment. You might not meant it to be this way, but that's exactly what such a right would entail. A right is an absolute claim. If a person have an absolute claim to live in an none toxic environment, that means if his living space gets polluted for whatever reason, then SOMEONE gotta clean it for him.
Fact is, a lot of people today think legit political right is just any arbitrarily fashioned right with enough public support. That might makes a right. That anyone's idea of a right is valid as long as they can get enough vote behind it. That is wrong, a contradiction to reality.
A political right has to be foremost non-contradictory, can be applied to every single person in a society and without violating any other individual rights. Any positive right whether that be a right to medical care or a right to none-toxic environment is not a valid right, they are contradictory.