Property and water rights?

[MidGe]

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?

[tomdemaine]

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.

[Nielsio]

[ 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?

[Phil153]

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.

[tomdemaine]

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.

[Phil153]

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.

[ianlippert]

[ 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.

[tolbiny]

[ 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.

[tomdemaine]

[ 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?

[bdk3clash]

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.)