Final answer:
Disagreements concerning property rights are decided by the courts, where property rights need to be clearly defined for resolution. In the United States, such disputes consider democratic principles and the balance between private rights and public good. The judicial system, including state and federal courts such as the Supreme Court, adjudicates such property disagreements.
Step-by-step explanation:
Disagreements concerning property rights are primarily decided in the courts. According to the insights of economist Ronald Coase, such disputes cannot be resolved until property rights are clearly defined. For example, a farmer may assert the right not to have their field burned by sparks from a railroad's trains, while the railroad may claim the right to operate trains on its own tracks. When property rights are well-defined, the responsible party will find and fund a solution to prevent damage, such as sparks setting fire to a field. In the United States, with a foundation in democratic principles and free-market capitalism, such disputes are adjudicated within the judicial system, balancing private rights with the greater public good, as depicted in landmark cases like Kelo v. the City of New London (2005).
After the ratification of the Constitution, a national judiciary was established to remedy disputes more equitably, as opposed to the sectional favoritism seen under the Articles of Confederation. The judicial system, including state and federal courts, ensures that every state upholds democratic principles and manages disputes within a standardized legal framework. It is the state courts, and often ultimately the Supreme Court, that handle disagreements over property rights, interpreting both state and federal law.