Property and water rights?

[Phil153]

[ 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?

[ShakeZula06]

[ 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 ]

[CallMeIshmael]

[ 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)

[Brainwalter]

[ 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".

[ShakeZula06]

[ 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

[CallMeIshmael]

[ 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?

[Brainwalter]

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?

[Richard Tanner]

[ 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

[Brainwalter]

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.

[Richard Tanner]

[ 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