Political Theory

Re: Public Property Question

Avery — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 17:33:21 GMT

TokyoTom:
Phantom, I've posted here a few links on Austrian approaches to environmental issues that might interest you:

http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/10/03/starve-a-cold-feed-a-fever-links-to-austrians-on-environmental-issues.aspx

Some of these links are kind of dumb

Why has the price system seemingly failed [when it comes to unrecyclable waste]? Is his intrinsic to capitalism, one of the “market failures” that socialist economists are always rattling on about? Not at all. The failure stems not from laissez faire, but from state prohibition. Specifically, the government has nationalized, or municipalized, the industry of solid waste management.
[In case it isn't obvious, this article goes on to describe how privatized waste disposal would be cheaper, and create an economic incentive to use recyclable products, all at the same time. It uses the ridiculous fee of $5 to dispose of plastic as opposed to $0.10 for recyclable paper]

First off, most waste management is already privatized anyway. Secondly, since air and water are still deemed common goods, privatized waste management wouldn't solve anything; in fact, it would create an incentive to find new and more secretive places to dump stuff by providing an economic incentive. The only way privatization would fix the waste problem would be if the entire world were a Geolibertopia with restrictions on renting land, so all the waste companies were duty-bound to return their landfills to the way they found them afterwards. That would make disposing of plastic quite expensive. But as it is, this would just wreck the WM-owned land.

About a year ago, a colleague and I began an investigation of air and water quality for a sample of countries worldwide. We gathered data on income, life expectancy, and property rights enforcement for 14 countries. Our results replicated previous work that showed a systematic relationship between improved environmental quality and incomes after a certain income threshold was passed. Our new finding was that where property-rights enforcement is stronger, environmental quality is better.

Obviously once people have a certain income level they can afford to protect their property. Duh! The role of government here is to protect the property of people who don't have the time or money to defend themselves in court. Some people work for a living rather than posting on Internet forums.

Re: Public Property Question

Niccolò — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:00:53 GMT

"Suppose you build a skyscraper blocking sunlight for a farm near you. Can the farmer can sue you? Suppose you already had a skyscraper that blocks your neighbor's sunlight, and your neighbor wants to build a farm. Can your neighbor sue? Suppose an airplane flies over your farm and blocks your sunlight. Can you have the right to sue? What are the dimensions of your property? Suppose you build a skyscraper on a mountain that is tall enough to block an airplane, is tall enough to break a satellite. Suppose you dug a hole to China. Can the Chinese sue? The dimensions of your property is vague. You can sue carbon emittors, as long as you proof that carbon is reasonably violating your property rights. But almost all people are carbom emittors. People would stop buying gasoline cars then."

This has been addressed by Murray Rothbard here,

http://www.mises.org/story/2120

Re: Public Property Question

libertarian — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:03:54 GMT

Suppose you build a skyscraper blocking sunlight for a farm near you. Can the farmer can sue you? Suppose you already had a skyscraper that blocks your neighbor's sunlight, and your neighbor wants to build a farm. Can your neighbor sue? Suppose an airplane flies over your farm and blocks your sunlight. Can you have the right to sue? What are the dimensions of your property? Suppose you build a skyscraper on a mountain that is tall enough to block an airplane, is tall enough to break a satellite. Suppose you dug a hole to China. Can the Chinese sue? The dimensions of your property is vague. You can sue carbon emittors, as long as you proof that carbon is reasonably violating your property rights. But almost all people are carbom emittors. People would stop buying gasoline cars then.

Re: Public Property Question

WmBGreene — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:57:47 GMT

Brainpolice:
Proudhon, Spooner, Tucker, George, Claire, Rothbard, ????, Konkin

Karl Hess. Goldwater speechwriter to anarcho-syndicalist, left-libertarian.

By the way, Konkin grew up in Canada and his family was a member of the Social Credit Party.

Re: Public Property Question

Brainpolice — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 07:11:01 GMT

Niccolò:
Sounds familiar, eh boys?

Proudhon, Spooner, Tucker, George, Claire, Rothbard, ????, Konkin

My heroes (not much of a George fan though; mostly because of the land question)!

Re: Public Property Question

Niccolò — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 06:53:08 GMT

WmBGreene:
DBratton:
But ownership is not required for occupancy. Only permission is required for occupancy.

Self is required for occupancy.

Ah yes... Pay tax on your life or we exterminate you!

Sounds familiar, eh boys?

Re: Public Property Question

Niccolò — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 06:45:20 GMT

WmBGreene:
Presumably I have been gifted it's use by the owner.

Ah! But according to you, if all land has been developed, you are entitled to stand on his trampoline! Then taking it to a new extreme you assume that you are entitled to stand on that trampoline if you so please regardless of his ownership of it, for his "exclusive use" violates your self-ownership due to your desire to access everything and anything that anyone else claims ownership over.

Like a good anti-human, however, you offer a nifty little tax for him to keep his stuff without your implied interference.

WmBGreene:
If land represents a specific fixed location in space for economists, then there is no where I can exist without occupying land.

Then existence in reality is that which is taxed and you are contradicting yourself by claiming to be protecting existence and self-ownership you inherently violate it!

Even so, then your scarcity bullox is defeated. Space is ever expanding (big bang).

Now bring up "as good as" and I will bring up, good is what you get, deal.

Re: Public Property Question

WmBGreene — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 03:36:39 GMT

Niccolò:
So your assumption is that you own everything you occupy.

Do you own the trampoline you occupy that someone else has laboured to own?

Presumably I have been gifted it's use by the owner.

Niccolò:
The individual, like it or not, is separate from land. He may require land to perpetuate his life but that does not mean he is not separate from it.

If land represents a specific fixed location in space for economists, then there is no where I can exist without occupying land.

Re: Public Property Question

Niccolò — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 01:03:22 GMT

WmBGreene:
According to Locke it is only legitimate if enough and as good is left in common for others.

Great... Except Locke is wrong.

Re: Public Property Question

Niccolò — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 01:02:41 GMT

WmBGreene:
It is a right to self-ownership which doesn't have to be gifted or purchased and because self can not be separated from physically occupy "land" then we have a conflict when all lands are legally owned and some do not own.

So your assumption is that you own everything you occupy.

Do you own the trampoline you occupy that someone else has laboured to own?

The individual, like it or not, is separate from land. He may require land to perpetuate his life but that does not mean he is not separate from it.

Re: Public Property Question

TokyoTom — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:38:14 GMT

Phantom, I've posted here a few links on Austrian approaches to environmental issues that might interest you:

http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/10/03/starve-a-cold-feed-a-fever-links-to-austrians-on-environmental-issues.aspx

Re: Public Property Question

Inquisitor — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 04:04:05 GMT

On the so-called Lockean proviso:

http://www.hanshoppe.com/publications/econ-ethics-appx.pdf (p. 246)

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentynine.asp

http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae1_3_11.pdf (p. 91)

http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/Machan9.pdf

Re: Public Property Question

WmBGreene — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 02:03:31 GMT

DBratton:
But ownership is not required for occupancy. Only permission is required for occupancy.

Self is required for occupancy.

Re: Public Property Question

WmBGreene — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 02:01:52 GMT

DBratton:
But it is not an invasion of anyones's rights to cause the market price to rise through legitimate acquisition.

According to Locke it is only legitimate if enough and as good is left in common for others.

It is a claim on the labor of those who are excluded because they must occupy some location somewhere.

Re: Public Property Question

DBratton — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:36:18 GMT

WmBGreene:
How much labor is required? Does Neil Armstrong only own the footprints on the moon or the whole moon?

He used to own the footprints, but now he has abandoned them. I guess you can have them.

WmBGreene:
The externality is that costs are forced upon those being excluded in the form of higher land prices for them to occupy.

Yes. But it is not an invasion of anyones's rights to cause the market price to rise through legitimate acquisition.