Property rights questions

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Your positions on dams and wells seem to be inconsistent. There is no difference between water that is above or below ground. Your diversion of well water can affect other's water usage just as significantly.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right, although in practice there a few differences, such as fewer stakeholders, untapped resources, not knowing the capacity, the lack of environmental effects downstream, and the water possibly being stationary under a person's property which confers different rights of usage. But if you're talking about a finite underground stream, then I guess I can't find a difference.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your positions on dams and wells seem to be inconsistent. There is no difference between water that is above or below ground. Your diversion of well water can affect other's water usage just as significantly.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right, although in practice there a few differences, such as fewer stakeholders, untapped resources, not knowing the capacity, the lack of environmental effects downstream, and the water possibly being stationary under a person's property which confers different rights of usage. But if you're talking about a finite underground stream, then I guess I can't find a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a nit, but even depleting your own store of stationary water can lower the water table of surrounding areas.

[loose passive]

[ QUOTE ]


Are you asking under the status quo in the USA?



[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Under your ideal politcal system how would you answer these questions?


[/ QUOTE ]

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
What am I "free" to do with my land?






Under your ideal politcal system how would you answer these questions?

I have a plot a land that I rightfully purchased from the previous owner who was the legal owner of said property.

Example 1.
On this land I want to dig a hole to put a pool in.
Can I legally do this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Example 2.
On this land is a river that starts somewhere off my land and ends somewhere off my land. I want to dam this river to make a large lake for me to swim in and water my crops with.
Can I legally do this?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends. Are you damaging the property of others downstream? If you are, then no. If you aren't, then yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Example 3.
The land I own includes some marshland. I want to fill in the marshland to make a parking lot to store my cars and rv.
Can I legally do this?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't damage anyone else's property, yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Example 4.
I want some shade on my property so I erect a giant umbrella but for a few hours each day now your farmland is now in the shade.
Can I legally do this?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ QUOTE ]
Example 5.
I want to start selling water. I dig a giant well on my land and then begin to pump out much water as physically possible.
Can I legally do this?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are not damaging other's property, then yes. If you are, then no.

[neverforgetlol]

Homesteading is a bunch of crap. If you work on a piece of land, that's great but doesn't somehow make you owner for life. And how much work you'd have to do anyway is unclear.

As for property rights, there is no such thing. Rights do not exist outside of some theologic or platonic heaven worldview.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Only if my master (government) tells me I can

[/ QUOTE ]
fyp

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Only if my master (government) tells me I can

[/ QUOTE ]
fyp

[/ QUOTE ]

nice ethos

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Homesteading is a bunch of crap. If you work on a piece of land, that's great but doesn't somehow make you owner for life. And how much work you'd have to do anyway is unclear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate? Most mutualists I'm aware of are 100% sold on homesteading, they just don't think that you continue to 'own' the land after you stop personally using it.
There is some uncertainty, of course, as to what specific things (ie, how much work) would constitute homesteading, but this in no way settles the 'controversial' issue of whether or not land is something that can be rented (fwiw, I don't think this question can be answered by an appeal to homesteading, since the principles of homesteading just state the conditions by which one would come to own something originally, not the conditions by which they are considered abandoned. I think a theory of rights/ownership, or lack thereof, is needed to answer the land question).

[ QUOTE ]
As for property rights, there is no such thing. Rights do not exist outside of some theologic or platonic heaven worldview.

[/ QUOTE ]

umm, what? Are you claiming that everyone who believes in rights has a Platonic or theological worldview? Because this is clearly false (for instance, an Aristotelian might believe in rights yet might not be religious nor Platonic; or, a rule utilitarian might believe in their necessity as a practical matter). Beleiving in rights is not beleiving in some weird metaphyscial thing necessarily, it has more to do with believing in the existence of moral legitimacy. And most people, whatever their religious beliefs, believe that some actions are not morally legitimate. If this is the case, then it is not a far cry to beleive that it is legitimate to use force in some cases (to protect what you have a 'right' to) and not in others.

[Copernicus]

change "moral"/"morally" to "ethical"/"ethically" and you take it more clearly out of the metaphysical

[2OuterJitsu]

[ QUOTE ]
change "moral"/"morally" to "ethical"/"ethically" and you take it more clearly out of the metaphysical

[/ QUOTE ]

How? What's less metaphysical about ethics.