Economics Questions

Re: Does Rothbard Support Positive Rights/Collective Ownership of Waterways?

AndrewH — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 22:19:34 GMT

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 of potentially thousands of miles of river by the first user)

Complete privatization of rivers is preferable to Rothbard's appropriation theory if a person favors capitalism and liberty.

During privatization, one option would be to extend all riverbed property lines to the center of the flow- much like Walter Block mentions property ownership extending to the center of a road when privatizing that arena.

Re: Does Rothbard Support Positive Rights/Collective Ownership of Waterways?

AndrewH — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 21:40:25 GMT

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.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Autolykos :
Let me also ask you this: do you think it's permissible (let alone possible) to have use-rights over something without actually owning it?

Absolutely, but the rights must come from a voluntary agreement with a person who actually owns said resource. You seem to be implying that a first user of a riverbed should be allowed to "own" the flow of the entire waterway. That is, any upstream landowner cannot use their water in any way that will reduce the flow of the first user (parasite).

Re: Does Rothbard Support Positive Rights/Collective Ownership of Waterways?

AndrewH — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 21:19:57 GMT

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.

I think every property on earth would actually be the correct answer, but more realistically any property which encompasses any part of a watershed. Anyone who owns the smallest tributary is unable to use the water on their own land for the benefit of some distant, downstream, "original user", parasite.

Autolykos:
Here you're attacking a strawman, as my position is not identical with the government's view of prior-appropriation water rights.

If your position is that of Rothbard's (which I assumed it was), then there is no strawman. If it differs from the one that Rothbard presents ro if I have misinterpreted, please elaborate.

Autolykos:
In that situation, I don't think the hunter appropriated land per se - I think he appropriated hunting rights over an area of land. If all the wild game gets killed off because someone else comes along and builds a strip mall, then yes, I'd consider the building of the strip mall to be an infringement on the hunter's rights. It's obvious to me that the hunter's rights extend over a larger area of land than you think they do.

I thought homesteading defined how private property in land can legitimately arise. Land is the vessel for all natural resources, not the other way around. The first man to pump an aquifer does not own the entire aquifer, just a piece that he personally makes use of. The first man to use a hunting ground does not claim every inch of land the deer around him may migrate upon, just a piece of land that he personally makes use of. The first man to use a river does not own the entire river. A man does not homestead an entire resource, he homesteads a piece of land containing a resource. If the resource dries up, tough luck- that is a risk every landowner takes.

Re: Does Rothbard Support Positive Rights/Collective Ownership of Waterways?

Autolykos — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 21:00:20 GMT

AndrewH:
Yes it does-

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.

AndrewH:
and you highlight the absurdity of prior appropriation water rights. If the drop could potentially find it's way downstream into a river, I no longer have the right to do with it as I wish, while it is still on my property. This article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123794222413232887.html) covers the appropriation or Colorado doctrine at work.

Here you're attacking a strawman, as my position is not identical with the government's view of prior-appropriation water rights.

AndrewH:
Well, do you own the actual land underneath the river? If so, yes you own any amount of water that enters your property and can do anything with it. If you do not own the land under the river, no you cannot use any water that has not crossed your property line. If each man owns land to the center of the river, both people can do with the water as they like, assuming it continues to flow on their land in the future.

Implicit in my hypothetical scenario was that I don't own any part of the riverbed. However, I find it strange that you don't think I'm allowed to use any water in the river in that case. 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.

Let me also ask you this: do you think it's permissible (let alone possible) to have use-rights over something without actually owning it?

AndrewH:
A landowner must abstain from using water that is flowing across his property, beccause people downstream claim the right to use it- downstreamers force upstreamers to provide them with water. How is that not communal ownership, and enforcement of positive rights?

If he doesn't own any part of the riverbed, then no water in the river is flowing across his property. But how do you define "communal ownership" and "positive rights"?

AndrewH:
If a hunter appropriates some land, and a neighbor decides to build a strip mall and ends up killing all the wild game, the builder is not liable to the hunter. The hunter still has his land, and he has no right to force his neighbors to maintain habitat as to provide him with a steady supply of deer. The same is true for fisherman and farmers using water flowing off of a neighbor's property.

In that situation, I don't think the hunter appropriated land per se - I think he appropriated hunting rights over an area of land. If all the wild game gets killed off because someone else comes along and builds a strip mall, then yes, I'd consider the building of the strip mall to be an infringement on the hunter's rights. It's obvious to me that the hunter's rights extend over a larger area of land than you think they do.

Re: Does Rothbard Support Positive Rights/Collective Ownership of Waterways?

AndrewH — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 20:58:19 GMT

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.

Re: Does Rothbard Support Positive Rights/Collective Ownership of Waterways?

Autolykos — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 20:46:37 GMT

nirgrahamUK:
Yes, and I was saying that you haven't refuted it to my satisfaction.

What would satisfy you here?

Re: Does Rothbard Support Positive Rights/Collective Ownership of Waterways?

AndrewH — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 20:26:34 GMT

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.

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, I no longer have the right to do with it as I wish, while it is still on my property. This article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123794222413232887.html) covers the appropriation or Colorado doctrine at work.

Autolykos:
Let me ask you this: if I own land that happens to abut a river, would you say I own any part of the river as a result?

Well, do you own the actual land underneath the river? If so, yes you own any amount of water that enters your property and can do anything with it. If you do not own the land under the river, no you cannot use any water that has not crossed your property line. If each man owns land to the center of the river, both people can do with the water as they like, assuming it continues to flow on their land in the future.

Autolykos:
How is the river collectively owned in this instance? No group of people has the right to sell the entire river, does it?

A landowner must abstain from using water that is flowing across his property, beccause people downstream claim the right to use it- downstreamers force upstreamers to provide them with water. How is that not communal ownership, and enforcement of positive rights?

If a hunter appropriates some land, and a neighbor decides to build a strip mall and ends up killing all the wild game, the builder is not liable to the hunter. The hunter still has his land, and he has no right to force his neighbors to maintain habitat as to provide him with a steady supply of deer. The same is true for fisherman and farmers using water flowing off of a neighbor's property.

Re: Does Rothbard Support Positive Rights/Collective Ownership of Waterways?

nirgrahamUK — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 19:57:16 GMT

Yes, and I was saying that you haven't refuted it to my satisfaction.

Re: Does Rothbard Support Positive Rights/Collective Ownership of Waterways?

Autolykos — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 19:53:14 GMT

nirgrahamUK:
Perhaps, you were simply imprecise, but actively sucking air out of someones home, is taking away the air which is in that persons house, and is therefore potentially a tort. I guess your point stands with regards to someone who owns the requisite property to make sealing your home from the outside feasible, but this odd scenario hardly strikes me as a convincing refutation of the legal theory any more so than the revelation that under liberty all those who farm have no positive obligation to offer you food and so you *may* legitimately starve.

I was addressing AndrewH's assertion that one has not been deprived of any rights if the river from which he's homesteaded a certain amount of water flow dries up due to his upstream neighbors taking the entire flow.

Re: Does Rothbard Support Positive Rights/Collective Ownership of Waterways?

Autolykos — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 19:50:26 GMT

AndrewH:
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?

How is the river collectively owned in this instance? No group of people has the right to sell the entire river, does it?

AndrewH:
On countless, seperately owned properties. A drop might begin at my gutter, travel across my land and enter a neighbors property (if the neighbor is ok with this form of pollution, of course) only to end up in a river a thousand miles away. The point is, any water (or other natural resource) that resides on my property should be under my absolute control, until I allow it to leave- this is the capitalist position.

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.

Let me ask you this: if I own land that happens to abut a river, would you say I own any part of the river as a result? And would you say that any water in that adjacent river ever resides on my property?

AndrewH:
The idea that my immediate neighbor, and every other owner downstream partially owns the water hitting my roof and can stop me from using it is a socialist position.

I just wonder why Rothbard accepted this form of communal ownership of resources.

Well, I think you're mischaracterizing Rothbard's position. He's not talking about water in general, he's talking about water from rivers.

Re: Does Rothbard Support Positive Rights/Collective Ownership of Waterways?

nirgrahamUK — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 19:38:04 GMT

Autolykos:
By your reasoning, you'd have no course of action against someone who sucked all the air out of your house. After all, your ownership was over the house, not the air flowing in, through, and around it.

Perhaps, you were simply imprecise, but actively sucking air out of someones home, is taking away the air which is in that persons house, and is therefore potentially a tort. I guess your point stands with regards to someone who owns the requisite property to make sealing your home from the outside feasible, but this odd scenario hardly strikes me as a convincing refutation of the legal theory any more so than the revelation that under liberty all those who farm have no positive obligation to offer you food and so you *may* legitimately starve.

Re: Does Rothbard Support Positive Rights/Collective Ownership of Waterways?

AndrewH — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 19:37:53 GMT

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?

Autolykos :
Where does the water in a river reside over the course of a day? A month? A year?.

On countless, seperately owned properties. A drop might begin at my gutter, travel across my land and enter a neighbors property (if the neighbor is ok with this form of pollution, of course) only to end up in a river a thousand miles away. The point is, any water (or other natural resource) that resides on my property should be under my absolute control, until I allow it to leave- this is the capitalist position.

The idea that my immediate neighbor, and every other owner downstream partially owns the water hitting my roof and can stop me from using it is a socialist position.

I just wonder why Rothbard accepted this form of communal ownership of resources.

Re: Does Rothbard Support Positive Rights/Collective Ownership of Waterways?

Autolykos — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 19:18:28 GMT

AndrewH:
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 upstream property and rightfully owned by said upstream landowner.

The water won't stay upstream unless it's collected. That's my point.

AndrewH:
People downstream claim ownership of the water that resides on another man's upstream property, and Rothbard seems to be ok with this.

Where does the water in a river reside over the course of a day? A month? A year?

AndrewH:
This might help put the article in perspective: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior-appropriation_water_rights

I've read it before, but thanks.

AndrewH:
The confusion arises when people talk about homesteading a river. An original homesteader, who is a fisherman, only homesteads the land with which the river lies- he has no "right" for those upstream to maintain his flow for him. Once the river is dried up or diverted, he still owns his homsteaded property. Similarly if an original homesteader exploits oil, when his well is dry he still owns his homesteaded property.

Obviously many libertarians (Rothbard included, apparently) disagree with me on this point and consider the ability to homestead part of the "river" itself valid.

The river is a source of moving water, right? It doesn't stay put like land can be considered to stay put. So it makes no sense to speak of homesteading a river in the same way as homesteading land. Instead, it's the flow of the river that's homesteaded.

By your reasoning, you'd have no course of action against someone who sucked all the air out of your house. After all, your ownership was over the house, not the air flowing in, through, and around it.

Re: Does Rothbard Support Positive Rights/Collective Ownership of Waterways?

AndrewH — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 18:19:30 GMT

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 upstream property and rightfully owned by said upstream landowner.

People downstream claim ownership of the water that resides on another man's upstream property, and Rothbard seems to be ok with this.

This might help put the article in perspective: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior-appropriation_water_rights

The confusion arises when people talk about homesteading a river. An original homesteader, who is a fisherman, only homesteads the land with which the river lies- he has no "right" for those upstream to maintain his flow for him. Once the river is dried up or diverted, he still owns his homsteaded property. Similarly if an original homesteader exploits oil, when his well is dry he still owns his homesteaded property.

Obviously many libertarians (Rothbard included, apparently) disagree with me on this point and consider the ability to homestead part of the "river" itself valid.

Re: Does Rothbard Support Positive Rights/Collective Ownership of Waterways?

Autolykos — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 17:37:29 GMT

As the old saying goes, you never step into the same river twice. Unless collected, the water in a river will flow from one person's property to his downstream neighbor's. In other words, water doesn't necessarily stay in the same place. Purchasing additional water rights in the river simply means purchasing the right to use more water from the river than before.