Now, the federal government has moved to regulate land use in other ways to provide for the public good, such as habitat preservation for endangered species. This is, however, the fundamental point of contention for the authors. They argue that asking the general public to pay for these goods, as property rights legislation would require, violates the command to love our neighbors. They are wrong. Consider a parallel situation.
Police protection is essential for law and order in our communities.
Therefore, following their reasoning, home owners should have an obligation to provide free housing for all police officers, just as landowners must provide free habitat for endangered species. To argue that something is for the common good does not mean that provision of that common good should fall only upon a limited number of people. There is no more justice inherent in allowing people to commandeer land for species without paying for it than there is in allowing police officers to commandeer living space without paying for it. Probably a large amount. The authors assert that takings legislation would compensate landowners not just for beneficial social acts such as protecting endangered species but also for regulations against pollution.