Political Theory

Re: Property Rights vs. Use-Rights

dude6935 — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 05:12:37 GMT

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.

Re: Property Rights vs. Use-Rights

BrianAnderson — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 03:02:25 GMT

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?

Re: Property Rights vs. Use-Rights

dude6935 — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 21:34:16 GMT

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.

Re: Property Rights vs. Use-Rights

Sieben — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 18:07:03 GMT

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.

Re: Property Rights vs. Use-Rights

filc — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 17:47:16 GMT

Why can't the market handle this?

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.

Re: Property Rights vs. Use-Rights

BrianAnderson — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 09:34:56 GMT

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.

Re: Property Rights vs. Use-Rights

liberty student — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 07:50:38 GMT

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?

Re: Property Rights vs. Use-Rights

dude6935 — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 07:06:16 GMT

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.

Re: Property Rights vs. Use-Rights

BrianAnderson — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 04:57:35 GMT

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.

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.

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.

Re: Property Rights vs. Use-Rights

dude6935 — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 03:11:15 GMT

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.

Re: Property Rights vs. Use-Rights

BrianAnderson — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 23:17:50 GMT

Hahahaha. One of my favorite movies of all time. I drink it up!

Re: Property Rights vs. Use-Rights

Vitor — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 23:15:33 GMT

Hey Brian,

Re: Property Rights vs. Use-Rights

BrianAnderson — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 21:49:59 GMT

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.

Re: Property Rights vs. Use-Rights

David — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 19:05:53 GMT

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?

Re: Property Rights vs. Use-Rights

DMI1 — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 16:30:16 GMT

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?