-
Morally speaking (disregarding every economic problem with government run charity) forcing people to give to charity causes the act to no longer reflect a moral choice When a man gives to those in need out of the kindness of his own heart, he is making a powerful moral decision. If he is forced to give, there is no good will involved; there is no moral
-
Now, Rothbard is absolutely right when he calls for the elimination of all requirements for "beneficial" use and for water to be be absolute property, not at the sufferance of the State. Rothbard errors by rejecting outright private property and favoring prior appropriation water rights, thus encouraging collective ownership and monopolization
-
[quote user=" Autolykos "] By your position here, homesteading of anything isn't allowed, because it must first be on someone's property, and at that point it's already owned by the person who's property it's on. [/quote] I have no idea what you are talking about. [quote user=" Autolykos "] Let me also ask you
-
[quote user=" Autolykos "]No it doesn't. I still don't know on what property or properties outside of the river you think the water in the river resides on over a given length of time.[/quote] I think every property on earth would actually be the correct answer, but more realistically any property which encompasses any part of a watershed
-
An apt analogy would be someone sucking all the air out of their own property in such a way as to cause other property owners to lose their atmosphere... it's not very realistic though.
-
[quote user=" Autolykos "]I'm sorry but that doesn't really answer my question. If a drop of water is in your gutter, for example, then it's not in the river at all.[/quote] Yes it does- and you highlight the absurdity of prior appropriation water rights. If the drop could potentially find it's way downstream into a river,
-
Water is a natural resource like any other, why (short of private agreements or neighborrhood association rules against it) should it not be treated like any other privately owned natural resource, and be considered the landowner's owners absolute property? Why is collective ownership preferable in this instance, but no others? [quote user="
-
If it were simply a matter of paying a group of landowners upstream to abstain from consuming water on their property, that would be totally acceptable. However, downstream landowners consider it a property rights violation and will sue landowners upstream for "taking" their "fair share" of a river, even though the water is on the
-
I'm glad we agree. It's interesting how Rothbard and many other libertarians support this positive right. I understand the concept that supports a fisherman homesteading a piece of riverside property, but ultimately he has no right to tell property owners upstream what to do with their portion of a waterway (short of polluting it). Its similar
-
Thanks for the link! There's some interesting agruments being made about that very topic in the comments section of the aforementioned daily. We might be best suited to continue our conversation there. (i thought the thread was dead, for some reason) thanks again,