Property and water rights?
 

Property rights are really a fantasy.

There is a current debate in this country (Australia) about whether the states or federal government should take control of a a major waterway system (the Murray-Darling if you want to know). One state has resisted federal take-over. It is, of course the state that is at the end of the line of that particular waterway system.

This issue got me thinking about the silliness and simplification that AC always ( [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ) bring to any issues. Does property rights extend below ground? How far below? Does is extend above ground, ie river systems? Does it extend to water that hasn't fallen yet as rain?

I am interested, although don't expect, about any intelligent AC reply as to what applies and how, or by what means, and under which philosophical or ideological argument, those rights should be enforced?

Re: Property and water rights?
 

Do I own a Frisbee if I'm holding it in my hand after just purchasing it? What about if I throw it to a friend? Who owns it while its still in flight? You're right, these questions are impossible to solve without violence and coercion I always take a gun to my Frisbee golf games.

Re: Property and water rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Property rights are really a fantasy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? How would you feel if you got raped, stolen from or murdered? What if it's done to someone else. Any sense of injustice?

Re: Property and water rights?
 

Judging from these first two replies, you may be psychic Midge [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

As for Nielsio, why are you conflating rights to your own person with rights of property? Rights to your own person are largely considered to be near absolute, whereas ownership of a piece of land or part of a company is frequently considered not so. Don't pretend that they're all "property rights" and that denying one is denying the other.

Re: Property and water rights?
 

But if you eat and drink in order to keep that body (which is your property alive you have to acknowledge property rights for the food and drink. You have disposed of something in a way that makes it unusable by anyone else. By not sending me all of your money on pokerstars your implying that you've got more of a right to it than I have. Words mean nothing, your actions show what you really think about property.

Re: Property and water rights?
 

I'm not denying that property rights are necessary and fair (up to a point). I'm denying that they're absolute. They exist within a framework of balancing the common good, justice, and personal freedom.

Rights to the integrity of your body, on the other hand, are generally thought of as absolute.

Re: Property and water rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am interested, although don't expect, about any intelligent AC reply as to what applies and how, or by what means, and under which philosophical or ideological argument, those rights should be enforced?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is where people really misunderstand AC. AC doesnt say anything in particular. The market will decide what particular form property rights take. The great thing about the market is that, unlike democracy, minority opinions can still be catered to. So if you love communism theres no reason you and your communist friends cant partition off a piece of land and create a modern communist state.

This debate often turns into AC theorizing about how their particular preference will look like under AC. But you should remember that it's just their preference. We are all part of the market and we will all have a hand in deciding what a future AC world looks like.

Re: Property and water rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]

This issue got me thinking about the silliness and simplification that AC always ( ) bring to any issues. Does property rights extend below ground? How far below? Does is extend above ground, ie river systems? Does it extend to water that hasn't fallen yet as rain?

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the principle behind property rights as the majority of ACers who post around here see it? The beginnings of figuring out how much a person "owns" as far as property, how much below, how much above, can be extrapolated from principles posted at least a half dozen times here, though I would not find it surprising if you don't have the slightest memory of reading such a statement. It is pointless "discussing" these things with you since it is blatantly obvious you either don't read what is written or don't spend any time actually trying to digest the information.

Re: Property and water rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not denying that property rights are necessary and fair (up to a point). I'm denying that they're absolute. They exist within a framework of balancing the common good, justice, and personal freedom.

Rights to the integrity of your body, on the other hand, are generally thought of as absolute.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by property rights being absolute? I don't think property rights are absolute by my definition. If you kill someone don't you lose the right of full ownership of your body?

Re: Property and water rights?
 

Speaking of water rights, from Democracy Now!'s headlines for today:

[ QUOTE ]
Stockton California Votes to Undo Water Privatization
In news from California, the City Council in Stockton has unanimously voted to undo the privatization of the city's water utilities. In 2001 Stockton signed a $600 million deal to give the multinational company OMI-Thames control of the city's water system. It was the largest water privatization deal west of the Mississippi. But for the past seven years local residents and environmental groups have fought for the city to regain control of its water. The campaign was featured in the documentary Thirst. Critics of the 2001 deal said privatizing the water system opened the door to harmful environmental impacts to the surrounding water delta, and decreased the public's say over how the systems were managed.

[/ QUOTE ]

San Jose Mercury News: "Stockton city council drops appeal of privatized water ruling"

(Apologies for hijacking this thread away from anarchocapitalism.)

Re: Property and water rights?
 

I hate it when they call this a privatization it's just the state giving a particular company the sole right to exploit people so that they don't have to suffer the bad publicity from doing it themselves. Licensing =/= privatization!

Re: Property and water rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The great thing about the market is that, unlike democracy, minority opinions can still be catered to.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you bold and italicize "can" then I think that's accurate.

Cody

Re: Property and water rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Rights to the integrity of your body, on the other hand, are generally thought of as absolute.

[/ QUOTE ]

If rights over your body are close to absolute, what about what I do with my body? Am I allowed to move my arms and legs as i wish?

Re: Property and water rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The great thing about the market is that, unlike democracy, minority opinions can still be catered to.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you bold and italicize "can" then I think that's accurate.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Even the implication that they cannot in a democracy?

Re: Property and water rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The great thing about the market is that, unlike democracy, minority opinions can still be catered to.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you bold and italicize "can" then I think that's accurate.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Even the implication that they cannot in a democracy?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was a little less-then-happy leaving that, but I didn't want to butcher your words. Although it's at least partly accurate, the minority on a particular topic is asked (told) to bend to the will of the majority (withen limits set by law).

Cody

Re: Property and water rights?
 

They're not my words I was just asking for clarification. I realise we all sound alike [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Property and water rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you kill someone don't you lose the right of full ownership of your body?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what you're saying here. If you kill someone then you forfeit a leg?

Re: Property and water rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you kill someone don't you lose the right of full ownership of your body?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what you're saying here. If you kill someone then you forfeit a leg?

[/ QUOTE ]

It all depends on your definition of absolute I guess. If you're in the middle of a killing spree I am morally justified in shooting you do you lose ownership of your leg? Probably not but can you be said to have absolute ownership of something that I am morally entitled to put a bullet in?

Re: Property and water rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you kill someone don't you lose the right of full ownership of your body?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what you're saying here. If you kill someone then you forfeit a leg?

[/ QUOTE ]

It all depends on your definition of absolute I guess. If you're in the middle of a killing spree I am morally justified in shooting you do you lose ownership of your leg? Probably not but can you be said to have absolute ownership of something that I am morally entitled to put a bullet in?

[/ QUOTE ]

Where are you deriving your "moral entitlement" from to shoot somebody?

Re: Property and water rights?
 

Self defense which stems ironically from self ownership like I say I this is a problem of definition rather than disagreement

Re: Property and water rights?
 

Are you people incapable of staying on topic? How many threads now have descending into an off-topic AC circle-jerk? Do we need a seperate AC Politics area where we can lock all you people up and you can descent into chaos to your heart's content? I'm not one to call for actions by mods, but this is getting freakin' annoying for the rest of us.

Re: Property and water rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Does property rights extend below ground? How far below?

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Does property rights extend to the east? How far east?

As far as people are willing to make claims, LDO. Do you think that when you tunnel underground a whole new set of moral principles magically come into play?

[ QUOTE ]
Does is extend above ground, ie river systems? Does it extend to water that hasn't fallen yet as rain?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you homestead clouds?

Re: Property and water rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are you people incapable of staying on topic? How many threads now have descending into an off-topic AC circle-jerk? Do we need a seperate AC Politics area where we can lock all you people up and you can descent into chaos to your heart's content? I'm not one to call for actions by mods, but this is getting freakin' annoying for the rest of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I am interested, although don't expect, about any intelligent AC reply

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored]!

Re: Property and water rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The great thing about the market is that, unlike democracy, minority opinions can still be catered to.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you bold and italicize "can" then I think that's accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yeah, LDO. Do you think anyone has an *entitlement* to be catered to?

Re: Property and water rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are you people incapable of staying on topic? How many threads now have descending into an off-topic AC circle-jerk? Do we need a seperate AC Politics area where we can lock all you people up and you can descent into chaos to your heart's content? I'm not one to call for actions by mods, but this is getting freakin' annoying for the rest of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the OP

[ QUOTE ]
This issue got me thinking about the silliness and simplification that AC always ( ) bring to any issues. Does property rights extend below ground? How far below? Does is extend above ground, ie river systems? Does it extend to water that hasn't fallen yet as rain?

I am interested, although don't expect, about any intelligent AC reply as to what applies and how, or by what means, and under which philosophical or ideological argument, those rights should be enforced?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are Acers not supposed to reply to threads that are specifically targeted at them? Are we not supposed to define property rights in a broader sense to make clear our position?

Re: Property and water rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The great thing about the market is that, unlike democracy, minority opinions can still be catered to.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you bold and italicize "can" then I think that's accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yeah, LDO. Do you think anyone has an *entitlement* to be catered to?

[/ QUOTE ]

LDO for you maybe, but plenty assume that under AC or communism or anything defferent then our Republic that the minorities get instant care.

Cody

Re: Property and water rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does property rights extend below ground? How far below?

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Does property rights extend to the east? How far east?

As far as people are willing to make claims, LDO. Do you think that when you tunnel underground a whole new set of moral principles magically come into play?

[ QUOTE ]
Does is extend above ground, ie river systems? Does it extend to water that hasn't fallen yet as rain?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you homestead clouds?

[/ QUOTE ]
You're still on about homesteading?

Re: Property and water rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Property rights are really a fantasy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? How would you feel if you got raped, stolen from or murdered? What if it's done to someone else. Any sense of injustice?

[/ QUOTE ]
Vengeful - so vengeful I might shoot a trespasser, in fact, thereby closing (in a manner of my own choosing) the force transaction that they initiated against me in a manner of their own choosing. And my action would be morally justifiable, too - if I subscribed to the folly of AC "morality".

Re: Property and water rights?
 

Some reading to get you started:
Who Owns Water? - Rothbard
Water Privatization - Block
The Economics of Water in the West - Anderson
Making Economic Sense (Ch. 25) - Rothbard

Re: Property and water rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does property rights extend below ground? How far below?

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Does property rights extend to the east? How far east?


[/ QUOTE ]
Why the idiocy? It's a legitimate questions in terms of mineral rights, building rights, and shared water and oil resources. At present you own all land to the center of the Earth under law. He's asking what would be different under AC.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does is extend above ground, ie river systems? Does it extend to water that hasn't fallen yet as rain?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you homestead clouds?

[/ QUOTE ]
Another silly reply. He's not talking about clouds, he's talking about (for example) building a massive damn on a river system to catch all the water (including that which hasn't fallen yet). Under absolute property rights, it seems to me there should be no reason you can't do this.

Another example: can a farmer on a small river system pump 100x what anyone else does, thereby drying up the flow for some downstream? What proof or recourse can the downstream farmer obtain?

Exploring these things is also about exploring the viability of AC.

Re: Property and water rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Some reading to get you started:
Who Owns Water? - Rothbard
Water Privatization - Block
The Economics of Water in the West - Anderson
Making Economic Sense (Ch. 25) - Rothbard

[/ QUOTE ]
Good reading thanks. But I'd love to hear AC arguments in their own words. Is the concept so difficult that you can't describe in a paragraph or two? Anyway, here's a quote from the first article:
[ QUOTE ]
Without attempting here to develop the argument at length, it seems clear to me that neither society nor the State has a right — a moral or an economic claim — to ownership of land. Production clearly means to me that human labor works with nature-given material and transforms it into more usable condition. All production does this. If a man is entitled to the product he creates, he also is entitled to the nature-given land that he first finds and brings into productivity. In other words, land including water, mines, and the like — in an unused, primitive state is economically unowned and worthless and therefore should be legally unowned. It should be owned legally by that person who first makes use of it. This is a principle which we might call "first ownership to first user."

[/ QUOTE ]
This seems to be unequivocal that anyone has to right to use all the water that flows onto his property. In addition, the "first use" idea has major problems. By the sounds of it, the natural environment must be used to claim ownership. Goodbye national parks and wilderness areas, except those deemed economically useless. Hello to upstream people hoarding water through dams in order to sell it to those living downstream. Can you say monopoly?

Just curious...do you see why this idea is fraught with problems?

Re: Property and water rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Property and water rights?

[/ QUOTE ]
Who owns water?
[ QUOTE ]
Property rights are really a fantasy.

[/ QUOTE ]
The USSR says Hi.
[ QUOTE ]
I am interested, although don't expect, about any intelligent AC reply

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This issue got me thinking about the silliness and simplification that AC always ( ) bring to any issues.

[/ QUOTE ]
These type of snobbish douchebag statements is why I took I short hiatus from this forum. Now I'll just take (hopefully long) hiatus from your posts.
[ QUOTE ]
You are now ignoring this user. You will no longer see the body of any of their posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Property and water rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does property rights extend below ground? How far below?

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Does property rights extend to the east? How far east?


[/ QUOTE ]
Why the idiocy? It's a legitimate questions in terms of mineral rights, building rights, and shared water and oil resources. At present you own all land to the center of the Earth under law. He's asking what would be different under AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

from statements pvn has made previously, it can be inferred that in AC land, property rights dont extend underground

(at what point "underground" begins isnt exactly clear, but it wasnt too deep)

Re: Property and water rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
from statements pvn has made previously, it can be inferred that in AC land, property rights dont extend underground

[/ QUOTE ]

pvn doesn't dictate what ACland will look like. He can only speculate about things, it is the market that decides. So maybe you should say "property rights MAY not extend underground".

Re: Property and water rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
from statements pvn has made previously, it can be inferred that in AC land, property rights dont extend underground

(at what point "underground" begins isnt exactly clear, but it wasnt too deep)

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no objective answer for how it would or could work. It would depend on common law, cultural, and societal norms.

edit: MY PONY TO SLOW

Re: Property and water rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
from statements pvn has made previously, it can be inferred that in AC land, property rights dont extend underground

[/ QUOTE ]

pvn doesn't dictate what ACland will look like. He can only speculate about things, it is the market that decides. So maybe you should say "property rights MAY not extend underground".

[/ QUOTE ]

wait, the market can decide whether or not something has rights?

I was under the impression that in AC land certain rights were taken as indisputable. For example, if the market decides that black people dont have rights, do they not have rights?

edit: or are person's rights indesuputable, but everything else is market driven. Ie. no one has the right to coerce, but if the market decides there are no such thing as property rights then there is no such thing as property rights?

Re: Property and water rights?
 

The market interprets apparent conflicts between people's property rights such as the ones posed. Whether rights are god-given, logically deducible, or social constructs is kind of a moot point imo - the relevant point is that widespread agreement on the basics - property rights and freedom from coercion - are preconditions to anything that could be called AC. Did I answer your question?

Re: Property and water rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The market interprets apparent conflicts between people's property rights such as the ones posed. Whether rights are god-given, logically deducible, or social constructs is kind of a moot point imo - the relevant point is that widespread agreement on the basics - property rights and freedom from coercion - are preconditions to anything that could be called AC. Did I answer your question?

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, I don't think you did, but it's not a lack of knowledge on your part, it's a problem with AC. It's easy to say "All rights are given to us by our creator/nature" but it's awful hard to enforce "nature's will."

You can't hate democracy for setting up rights or keeping them from being taken and espouse AC for doing basically the same thing. Having a group outline in a constitution what rights exist and having "market forces" dictate those rights is largely the same thing.

Cody

Re: Property and water rights?
 

What I'm saying is that, no I wouldn't say the market is "deciding whether someone has rights." Let's say A owns a farm, and his neighbors B and C decide to string a telephone line 50 feet above the ground over A's property, strung from poles on their own property. A doesn't like it and takes them to Judge Judy. It's taken as a given that they each own their plot of land, because well we're all westerners and there are legal precedents and whatnot. The question Judge Judy is faced with is the extent and interplay of those rights, and whether B ad C have violated A's rights or are acting within their own.

Re: Property and water rights?
 

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm saying is that, no I wouldn't say the market is "deciding whether someone has rights." Let's say A owns a farm, and his neighbors B and C decide to string a telephone line 50 feet above the ground over A's property, strung from poles on their own property. A doesn't like it and takes them to Judge Judy. It's taken as a given that they each own their plot of land, because well we're all westerners and there are legal precedents and whatnot. The question Judge Judy is faced with is the extent and interplay of those rights, and whether B ad C have violated A's rights or are acting within their own.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right and now it's up to Judge Judy, who has to be ever mindful of what the people want on a day to day basis, because it she pisses them off (which she's going to with every judgement, one happy, one pissed) then her DRO, "Judy Justice Corp.", will lose customers and go bankrupt.

The problem with alot of these debates is that they're equally applied to both sides. "I hate others making descisions for me" but that's what happens in both systems. Some are just more fluid than others.

Cody