Political Theory

Re: Privatizing the Ocean vs. the Lake/Dam/Etc.

Subcommander Veritas — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:01:53 GMT

I made a YT video response to a communist idiot about this. Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbroosuI2GU

Re: Privatizing the Ocean vs. the Lake/Dam/Etc.

Caley McKibbin — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:49:21 GMT

The specifics are not difficult. You can only homestead tangibles. If you built something to contain a volume of water, you could claim that water. If you caught a fish and then defined some coordinates within which you caught the fish, it would not be valid, because coordinates are not tangible.

Re: Privatizing the Ocean vs. the Lake/Dam/Etc.

BrianAnderson — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 06:46:49 GMT

If I'm not using the land down there, it is then unowned and homesteadable.

But that gets back to my point regarding whether people should have to pay to go fishing since we'll consider them to be scarce goods from now on. Basically everyone would be able to fish wherever they want except they'd have to buy fish which are pre-caught by fisherman and sold in the store/market somewhere?

EDIT: I don't have time right now, but I'll make sure to read that essay.

Re: Privatizing the Ocean vs. the Lake/Dam/Etc.

Sun, 28 Nov 2010 04:49:05 GMT

Brian Anderson, if you haven't read Rothbard's essay Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution, I would recommend reading it. Especially the section on owning a technological unit.

Re: Privatizing the Ocean vs. the Lake/Dam/Etc.

Sun, 28 Nov 2010 04:41:23 GMT

Brian Anderson:

Forget the whole cone-shaped concept its irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant. We were discussing whether someone can privatize the area of ocean and charge people if they want to fish. If you only own the surface, anyone can fish underneath you without messing up your property. But, if you own a cone-shaped area down to the bottom of the ocean, no one can fish even if they aren't messing up your property because they're actually on/in your property technically.

I thought the idea of people only homesteading the part of a resource they actually use was pretty common knowledge. The cone-shaped theory arose from people misinterpreting the concept of homesteading.

So to your point. If someone is using and has homesteaded a portion of the surface, it would be perfectly legitimate to fish underneath of them.

This is no different then someone building a tunnel under my house. If I'm not using the land down there, it is then unowned and homesteadable.

Re: Privatizing the Ocean vs. the Lake/Dam/Etc.

BrianAnderson — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 04:17:17 GMT

Butler Shaffer is your go-to guy on this.

Thanks! Yep, it's on the website here. I just put it into my 'favorites' so I'll be sure to check it out!

Re: Privatizing the Ocean vs. the Lake/Dam/Etc.

Jeremiah Dyke — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 03:59:02 GMT

It's not irrelevant. We were discussing whether someone can privatize the area of ocean and charge people if they want to fish. If you only own the surface, anyone can fish underneath you without messing up your property. But, if you own a cone-shaped area down to the bottom of the ocean, no one can fish even if they aren't messing up your property because they're actually on/in your property technically.

Butler Shaffer is your go-to guy on this. Boundaries of Order is one of the most intellectually stimulating books i've read in years. I believe its free on this site.

For Shaffer, ownership is contingent upon societies respect of your ownership. Ownership is simply a plea for our subjective preferences, thus, the property rights of the air above the surface (or below) of a farmer would be different than the owner of a skyscraper.

Re: Privatizing the Ocean vs. the Lake/Dam/Etc.

HurplePazed — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 03:43:05 GMT

Who knows in what fashion the water would be privatized in a free world. I have no idea how many shoes should be produced, I also am clueless as to how water would be privatized as there is basically no historical precedent. One problem with many libertarians is that they are legal positivists. Without a government, law would be private, and its specificities are just as hard to predict as changes in the fashion market.

http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm

Re: Privatizing the Ocean vs. the Lake/Dam/Etc.

BrianAnderson — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 01:18:04 GMT

Forget the whole cone-shaped concept its irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant. We were discussing whether someone can privatize the area of ocean and charge people if they want to fish. If you only own the surface, anyone can fish underneath you without messing up your property. But, if you own a cone-shaped area down to the bottom of the ocean, no one can fish even if they aren't messing up your property because they're actually on/in your property technically.

Re: Privatizing the Ocean vs. the Lake/Dam/Etc.

Sun, 28 Nov 2010 00:49:16 GMT

Brian Anderson:

Yeah, they can be homesteaded. But should people have to pay in order to fish in the ocean when fish are nearly non-scarce? Hunting deer/etc. is different because they are much more scarce.

The level of scarcity doesn't matter. Fish are scarce period. Some species less than others. But to make the claim that fish are nearly non-scare and therefore unhomesteadable is false.

Brian Anderson:

Also, I had another question: if we were to privatize the oceans in some way, would it be first-come-first-serve, or would someone be paid? Currently the government technically 'owns' it, but that's not really true as we all know.

Homesteading is first-come-first-serve provided that the person actually puts the resource to use. Nobody should be paid. Government has no claim to unowned resources.

Brian Anderson:

But you aren't really mixing your labor with it aside from the surface unless you're drilling for oil/minerals. I'm assuming if you had some kind of floating device you could technically own the surface, but below it would be free for use. That gets into the whole "Is property measured on the surface, or is it a cone-shaped area going down to the center of the Earth?" question.

You homestead the portion you are using. If you are using the surface, then you own the surface. If you are using below the surface, then you own below the surface. Forget the whole cone-shaped concept its irrelevant.

But you aren't really mixing your labor with it aside from the surface unless you're drilling for oil/minerals. I'm assuming if you had some kind of floating device you could technically own the surface, but below it would be free for use. That gets into the whole "Is property measured on the surface, or is it a cone-shaped area going down to the center of the Earth?" question.

Re: Privatizing the Ocean vs. the Lake/Dam/Etc.

Edmund Carlyle — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 00:17:50 GMT

But should people have to pay in order to fish in the ocean when fish are nearly non-scarce?

Pssh. Tell that to the depopulated regions in the North Sea.

Re: Privatizing the Ocean vs. the Lake/Dam/Etc.

BrianAnderson — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 22:52:44 GMT

If I may, I believe ownership rights over bodies of water would likely be centered around fishing rights and trade routes and both I think can be homesteaded relatively simply.

Yeah, they can be homesteaded. But should people have to pay in order to fish in the ocean when fish are nearly non-scarce? Hunting deer/etc. is different because they are much more scarce. Also, I had another question: if we were to privatize the oceans in some way, would it be first-come-first-serve, or would someone be paid? Currently the government technically 'owns' it, but that's not really true as we all know.

To me it is no-brainer. Water occupies space. It is possible to legally own that territory of space.

Re: Privatizing the Ocean vs. the Lake/Dam/Etc.

MaikU — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 09:58:13 GMT

To me it is no-brainer. Water occupies space. It is possible to legally own that territory of space. Same with air space. If a body can occupy it, it is scarce and it is possible to legally own (homestead) it to avoid conflicts etc.

I mean, if one believes in land ownership (homesteading) then by default one also believes in ocean, cosmic space ownership etc.

That's my amateur opinion at least.

Re: Privatizing the Ocean vs. the Lake/Dam/Etc.

Michelangelo — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 08:31:50 GMT

If I may, I believe ownership rights over bodies of water would likely be centered around fishing rights and trade routes and both I think can be homesteaded relatively simply. Fishing rights, if my memory isn't too overtly foggy, dependent largely on who first begins fishing in the region and maintains a significant presence there. Trading routes would be owned by private defense agencies that keep them clear of any pirates - or other dangers. At least I would presume that in the absence of state navies to protect commercial shipping from piracy shipping companies would form alliances, or a third corporation, to provide for safe passage through major waters.

Re: Privatizing the Ocean vs. the Lake/Dam/Etc.

FunkedUp — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 05:48:53 GMT

Lysander Spooner started up the "American Letter Mail Company" in 1844, where he succeeded in delivering the mail at a lower price than the government. Of course, the feds didn't like this, and shut him down in 1851, but, as a result of his actions, the government actually lowered the price of mail delivery.