But how would you reserve air frequencies, etc?
My understanding is that air frequencies, internet addresses and business logos would be another form of property enforced by protection agencies. Intangible property is actually quite similar to tangible property; it is not too difficult to violate it (at least initially),and the owner requires the threat of force to back up his claim. Since these titles are usually respected by foreign governments in the same geographic region, there is no reason not to expect protection agencies in the same region to follow suit. Can you foresee any problems here that governments might handle better?
But how do you stop companies secretly polluting the atmosphere?
One argument I have heard is that people would buy insurance against pollution. So insurance firms would be willing to pay (at least up to the amount they are liable for) potential polluters more than they seek to gain from polluting. But of course, the amount that the potential polluters seek to gain will be the amount that insurance firms are willing to pay. Everyone would buy hazardous chemicals in bulk to extract money from the insurance firms until they go out of business.
I think we underestimate the role that protection agencies may play in an ancap society. Bargaining between competing protection agencies can potentially solve almost every problem that is currently dealt with by government force (as standard practice or as last resort).
Suppose a factory is emitting heavy pollution. If the locals cannot stop their air being polluted, they may resort to violence. Since violence is expensive, they "lobby" their various protection agencies to prohibit customers from using (or even possessing) certain hazardous chemicals. Their protection agencies then prohibit certain chemicals on a cost-benefit analysis. This is essentially the same set of circumstances as prohibiting drugs, sex, etc. So perhaps the term dispute resolution organization is better to use, because their overall function would be resolving disputes, rather than protecting people. Because these organizations would pay out of pocket to prevent conflict, they would be more effective at preventing pollution than neighboring states.
What if private road owners imprison people in their homes or suburbs?
We can already do this with democracy. 95% of people can require that the police prevent anyone from leaving any gated community just for the fun of it, or they could extort money in this fashion. But most people would be appalled of by this, which is why it doesn't happen. (The general perception is that a small community is usually more irrational than national population.) Again, the dispute resolution organizations can come to save the day - just require that road owners grant people right of way if they really have no other option. If they don't, conflicts may begin to brew, and the prospect of expensive violence will be looming.
Intangible property is actually quite similar to tangible property
Except that it can be created indefinitely at no cost and used as a "claim" against real, tangible property. So, no, it's not quite similar or even similar at all.
Not all property is solid material but permitting property claims to a class of material objects based on some attribute of those objects alone (that they are red, or have a particular bit pattern inscribed on them, and so on) is a recipe for disaster. See modern IP law, QED. And not only is it a recipe for disaster but it just doesn't make any sense.
The pollution and encirclement problems have been dealt with at length elsewhere (sorry, I'm not going to search it for you... use "site:mises.org" after a Google search term to search only on the LvMI website). Basically, individual pollution is not a problem because it can be handled through tort liability. "Collective pollution" is invariably a creation of the State's "public properties", whether they be roadways, waterways, forests, parks or whatever. Property-izing these resources so that they belong to a single, fully-liable owner reduces all the supposed collective-pollution problems back to individual pollution problems.
Encirclement is not a serious problem as long as you have a legal concept of easements. Of course things are more complicated in the real world but things are always more complicated and this is precisely the problem with centrally-planning law and regulations.
By the logic of "bigger crowds are more rational", I guess the whole world is a much more rational place than, say, Zurich or Singapore. I think you're right, I think we should want to make those cities and others like them more like "the world" rather than the other way around.
Clayton -
Ancap66: But how do you stop companies secretly polluting the atmosphere? One argument I have heard is that people would buy insurance against pollution.
One argument I have heard is that people would buy insurance against pollution.
I would argue that buying a property purchases a continuation of the circumstances in which you bought it, in terms of values that freely flow on and off the property. Thus, air you bought clean you expect to remain clean; if someone's polluting you can sue for property damages and your remedy can be specific performance. It would be a private version of pollution credits almost. It would impose a cost on pollution and thus encourage reduction.
Another useful doctrine is 'coming to the nuisance.' Essentially, if you move in next door to a guy who blares music every night and has long since before you got there, you have no right to demand he stop. That's a way to handle noise pollution and potentially also radio-frequency interference.
Clayton:By the logic of "bigger crowds are more rational", I guess the whole world is a much more rational place than, say, Zurich or Singapore. I think you're right, I think we should want to make those cities and others like them more like "the world" rather than the other way around.
Ancap66:(The general perception is that a small community is usually more irrational than national population.)
Clayton:Not all property is solid material but permitting property claims to a class of material objects based on some attribute of those objects alone (that they are red, or have a particular bit pattern inscribed on them, and so on) is a recipe for disaster.
I agree with you on IP, but I have a feeling that people would "lobby" their DROs to defend some exceptional types of IP, like business logos.
Actually, I doubt this is the case. I think we think this is normal because the statist quo creates this illusory world where symbols and patterns are protected by guns. When symbols and patterns are not so protected, I think that two effects kick in to maintain brand power - constantly evolving branding (wearing last year's GAP logo makes you "so last year") and a brand certification industry (e.g. Rolexes). I don't see how the US PTO and DOJ spending zillions of dollars protecting GAP's logo is doing anybody besides GAP any good at all. GAP should have to foot the whole bill for their own branding costs. Clearly, it's not cost-effective to go around trying to sue and intimidate everyone who makes a knockoff. If it is so cost-effective, why do they have the government do it for them?