A while back, Sieben and I were discussing property rights and what exactly they referred to in terms of actual land. Sieben was talking about his definition of use-rights, which is basically a first-come-first-serve type of deal whereas land can be shared so long as no one is stopping someone else from participating in any activity. Kind of hard to explain without having you read it, so the link is here (don't mind the title of the thread; we got off on a tangent).
The closest quotation to describe the conversation is from Thomas Paine's Agrarian Justice:
"Man did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it; neither did the Creator of the earth open a land-office, from whence the first title-deeds should issue […] but it is nevertheless true, that it is the value of the improvement, only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property."
Please feel free to discuss your opinions on whether people should be able to retain rights to land, not its improvements.
I don't see how you can defend molecular or "land" rights. Radio waves go over my property all the time. Everyone's gravitational force ever so slightly effects me. STOP BENDING MY SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM GUYS
I agree with the notion that land is best used and not owned. You should try to use land without excluding others from it. When everyone makes small efforts to help others, we all have a better standard of living. Courteous drivers make the roads safer and more efficient. Courteous land use would be even more beneficial.
I am not making the case that all land should be communal. Some land should be exclusionary, homes for example.
I haven't read a whole lot about this issue (I don't find it all that interesting), but I don't see how this differs from Walter Block's conception of homesteading and "ownership," and I assume his conception is similar to whatever Rothbard said about it. One does not own land, but whatever is on it or in it. The farmer owns the crops and the barn, and can therefore exclude others from interfering with the soil that affects the crops and the ground that the barn rests on. If he stops growing crops, then he eventually loses his claim to the soil (with "eventually" determined by the prevailing legal norm).
Is this a controversy among libertarians?
A question that's been nagging me. If I acquire some empty lot inside the city, and fence it but decide to sit on it until later, what happens then? Can squatters live from there unimpeded? Do I have the right to run them out when I decide to use the land to build my inverted pyramid of condos and penthouses?
More importantly, I may not be using the land right now, but if a squatter jumps the fence and decides to live there: can I charge him rent for it?
I think this is an interesting topic. I have not fully sorted these issues out in my own mind.
Isn't this a question about contracts? When one "acquires" land, do you typically receive contractual rights to the water and minerals below the surface? Are there certain reserved rights that are not granted with your contract (for example an easement, building restrictions, etc)?
If you are talking about original homesteading of land that has been abandoned or never occupied, who grants the contract of ownership?
If a ship of 100 people wrecks on a small deserted tropical island and one explorer discovers the only fresh water spring and builds a fence around it so he can charge for the water, is he the legal owner? Does he have property rights? If someone else drills a diagonal well from outside his fence, are they guilty of stealing his property?
If someone else drills a diagonal well from outside his fence, are they guilty of stealing his property?
We were talking about that in regards to oil, too. I'm still not sure how I feel about this. Someone may be trying to drill for oil under his own property while a huge oil company can come really fast and build horizontal pipes to take it quicker. I'm not sure how I feel about that.
Hey Brian,
Hahahaha. One of my favorite movies of all time. I drink it up!
This is a very important question about mineral rights. I think allowing multiple firm to go after the same minerals could become dangerous. That need not disqualify that approach however, since it would encourage competition. I think allowing one firm to monopolies minerals is a bad idea, at least on a small scale. The other alternative is to collectivize mineral rights and lease the rights to the highest bidder. I know that won't go over well here, but there it is.
An alternative lease system would be to award the contract to the firm that offers the minerals to the community at the lowest price. This would be like a co-op.
The other alternative is to collectivize mineral rights and lease the rights to the highest bidder. I know that won't go over well here, but there it is.
Wouldn't that be the same thing as giving a company rights to drill monopolized land? I think that's what they do right now. Except this kind of raises prices since the drilling company needs to pay for the rights in the first place.
This would make sense since you're saying that it'd be offering the minerals to the community at the lowest price, but everything would have to be voluntary, and I feel like it wouldn't work out. Especially since the guy whose house is over a bunch of minerals/oil will want the money for it.
I am using the "one well on an island" example.
Normally the first to claim the well would be the owner. Instead, collectivization and leasing would choose the highest bidder and grant him the rights. Would it raise the price? It would depend on how the lease is structured. If it is based on production it would. If it is a flat rate, it wouldn't raise the price much and the revenue from the lease could be distributed.
The co-op approach would put the most competent firm in control of the well and keep prices as low as possible. If another firm can do the job cheaper, they can under bid the competition on the next bid.
Allowing one person to monopolize the well with no lease seems ridiculous. He would probably be killed anyway. Letting multiple people drill for water is a better solution. It would waste labor, but so does the bid process. It would keep prices low and fluid as market conditions change.
I prefer multiple drillers as long as it doesn't threaten the resource.
dude6935:The co-op approach would put the most competent firm in control of the well and keep prices as low as possible. If another firm can do the job cheaper, they can under bid the competition on the next bid.
Why can't the market handle this?
It can definitely handle prices, but I don't know how it could handle who would have 'rights' to drill the oil we're talking about, whether it's first-come-first-serve or first-to-get-there, etc.
Brian:It can definitely handle prices, but I don't know how it could handle who would have 'rights' to drill the oil we're talking about, whether it's first-come-first-serve or first-to-get-there, etc.
If you don't know who has the right(Claim to action)to what, you cannot formulate prices. If you do not know who can exchange this for that, and who has access to this resource to create that widget. You cannot formulate meaningful prices.
Ancaps frequently make the case that the market can handle rights. I won't go into that here. Statists think the market won't work, and instead advocate social solutions to problems. We should all vote on everything etc. The problem is, there are aggressive and non-aggressive social solutions! So you can take all the arguments that statists use (we should just vote on it) and apply it to a non-aggressive framework.
Indeed, most of the examples of customary law are socially provided. People don't pay for individual legal services. The community has mechanisms by which to identify property rights etc. Anglo Saxon Common Law is a good example. The Law Merchant is a good counter example of market law. The point is that if you don't think Markets will work, you don't have to spend a lot of time thinking about it. You can just default to the non-aggressive social response.
What is the market? If the people on the island choose to collectivize the resource, isn't that the market's answer?
I believe the resource (water, oil, whatever) does not belong to anyone while it is in the ground. It only belongs to people once it is extracted. Once it becomes the fruit of your labor, it is yours.
If the people on the island choose to collectivize the resource, isn't that the market's answer?
Yeah, but only if everyone is voluntarily participating.
Once it becomes the fruit of your labor, it is yours.
So you'd agree that it's first-come-first-serve or first-to-actually-reach-the-oil?
I would say that ownership of minerals belongs to the first person to take possession of the mineral. If you can get the resource into a stable container, pool, or pile, it is yours. If you lose containment of it, it is no longer yours unless you regain containment.