[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
But that's not his point. His point is that if you take a natural rights approach there is no dividing line between the two cases. To take his aeroplane example: no one here seriously questions that you should be able to forcibly disarm someone playing russian roulette with you against your will (1 in 6 chance of dying), just as no one here questions that someone flying a plane over your land is legitimate (say a 1 in 10 000 chance of dying). The problem that Friedman raises is that this seems entirely arbitrary if you look at it from a natural rights point of view.


[/ QUOTE ]

And the answer is the exact same as it is now. Its determined by how much people value the enforcement of their property rights. So some guy shines a light at my house, am I gonna pay the $100 to call the cops up and get him to stop? Or would I do what most people do now when minor infractions occur to their property? I'm going to go over to his house and have a discussion with him, and since most people dont have a incessant need to annoy their neighbours he's probably going to stop.

To say that there are some grey areas to property rights and therefore there are no property rights is pretty insane. We need to spend our time on the real important areas of property rights. Where people are stealing and murdering are far more important than some theoretical that is never going to happen in real life.