[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
History is filled with examples of property rights developing in the market. Actually, all property rights developed in the market before they were monopolized by the state. A good example is property rights in radio frequencies, which were being sorted out quite nicely in the courts before the Federal government nationalized, i.e. forceably seized, all radio frequencies and handed them out to priveleged members of a new government-licensed radio cartel.

No matter what crazy people like Theftertarian believe, people really do seek to minimize costs. Conflict is costly. Property rights rise up spontaneously to deter and resolve conflicts over scare resources, as well as systems to establish, vet, and prove claims, as well as systems to resolve conflicts. Violent coercive monopolies are not needed at any point along the line.

The places where you see perpetual conflicts, high costs, destruction and depletion of resources, etc, are where governments either prevent property rights from developing or acknowledging them (meaning that claimants have no access to the state's monopoly courts to settle disputes).

History is rife with examples. For example the Range Wars occured because the federal government refused to allow claims of more than 160 acres. This stake size was far to small for the grazing of cattle and sheep; hence competing ranchers had to graze their herds in the Federal commons. This lead to not only a tragedy of the commons in the grazing lands, but also to violent conflict, as ranchers repeatedly tried to fence off claims which the courts then refused to acknowledge. The disputes got settled, as they always are when they can't be settled in courts, violently. The violence was very costly, but it was the cheapest option given that they had no access to the courts. Gosh, I wonder why the drug trade is so violent?

Another tragedy of the commons is underway right now in the oceans. Seafood species are being massively overfished, because governments (not just ours) refuse to allow property rights in fisheries to develop. Modern technology makes electronic "fencing", patrol and enforcement of oceanic claims a simple matter, yet governments refuse to allow such rights to develop. The result is a population crash in the oceans, with some estimates I have seen showing a 90% depletion rate amongst many seafood species.

Owners of property have two incentives: to make a living from the property now, but also to preserve the market value of the property, i.e. their capital investment. In a commons, the second incentive does not exist. Furthermore, in a commons, there is no way to exclude users of the commons (excepting of course through corrupt and politicized government privelege systems). These effects combine to produce tragedies of the commons.

Anyone (excepting possibly Theftertarian) should be able to understand that there are only tragedies of the commons where there are commons.

[/ QUOTE ]Although this is a pretty good anti government speech. I'm not sure it it answers my question regarding unflinching property rights. And the possible need for public property. I'm am really trying to get at the logical solution. I personaly believe that an honest effort will lead to limited, uninterested legislative bodies.