Land rights, what do they include?

[Clawg]

You own what you produce, therefore moving onto a previously unowned piece of land, cut down the trees, plow an acre, build a house, harvest the crop etc. makes you the owner of that piece of land.

But what is 'that piece of land'? What does it include?

You will certainly hold property rights on the soil that you worked on, the trees you cut down, the materials you brought there, your house, etc., but what rights derive from that ownership and why?

My question is especially about how others may use the space around your property (assuming they won't damage or even touch your property, make loud noises etc.) :

May others fly over your house?

May others build a tunnel beneath your property?

May others build a bridge above your property?

May others build a large structure above (or aside) your property that blocks the sun light from reaching your soil?

While these questions are not very interesting when talking about a lone farm in the wild they become more interesting when looking at dense cities or when looking at future solar power technology. May I launch a satellite with huge solar panels that darken parts of the earth?

If not, why?

On the one hand I feel that this is somehow wrong because you do affect the property of the owner of the land.

On the other hand I think that property rights do not reach that far and with the sun light being a 'free' ressource you don't have any claim on sun light itself, only on the products you create out of it (e.g. food, electricity).

Thanks for any input

[JMeganSnow]

On the one hand I feel that this is somehow wrong because you do affect the property of the owner of the land.

On the other hand I think that property rights do not reach that far and with the sun light being a 'free' ressource you don't have any claim on sun light itself, only on the products you create out of it (e.g. food, electricity).

The question of legality between any two people, regardless of their interactions and the interactions of their property ultimately comes down to: were there any rights violated?

So, in order to answer your questions, you have to figure out what the relevant rights are and whether they have, in fact, been violated. So, what kind of rights are there? Life, Liberty, Property. Seems pretty simple, hmm?

Property is where most people get fouled up, because they have an imprecise definition for what constitutes someone's property. Your property is what you have put work into to change it from its natural state into something useful. Thus the berries you've gathered from a wild bush are your property, the house you've built on a parcel of land is your property, the pasture you improved by irrigating it is your property, and the money you earned at your job is your property.

Unowned things like air, sunlight, a nice view, etc. aren't your property . . . they're "gratis". So, taking away your sunlight or view doesn't constitute a violation of your rights. However, actually injuring you by, say, dumping contaminants in the water that poison you IS a violation of your rights. It's not property damage, it's personal damage.

[Galileo Blogs]

Also, the legal definition of property is, legitimately, adapted as technology changes and enhances man's ability to utilize more of the earth productively. For example, in some states, property rights only apply to the surface and a portion of the sub-surface of the land. Mining rights, the right to ores deep under the surface of the earth, are a separate property right. The owner of the surface property rights may have chosen to purchase the mining rights or not. If not, there are parts of the country where a mining company can actually mine the ore underneath your house as long as he moves your house or builds an equivalent house in a nearby area. This is true on the Mesabi iron ore range in northern Minnesota where the discovery of new sources of iron ore for strip-mining can involve moving entire towns. All of the homeowners of those towns only owned the surface property underneath their houses.

In other states, property rights extend down deep into the earth. In those states, farmers can get rich if oil is discovered underneath their farms. Since they own the oil, they can negotiate for royalties from the oil companies who pump it out. [Remember "The Beverly Hillbillies" anyone? ]

The whole concept of "mining rights" or the right to the deep recesses of the earth would not have existed in the absence of mining as a productive activity.

[mrocktor]

However, actually injuring you by, say, dumping contaminants in the water that poison you IS a violation of your rights. It's not property damage, it's personal damage.

On the other hand, if the clean water was "gratis", you have no claim on it either. It is your responsibility not to drink poisoned water that may be lying around on the planet. And if you have your artificial respirator equipment connected to a solar panel and your neighbor blocks your sunlight, killing you, he has caused you personal damage and can be sued.

Contradictions arise from incorrect principles. In this thread I'm arguing against the "you only own what you made" view of property.

Edited February 15, 2007 by mrocktor

[DavidOdden]

You own what you produce, therefore moving onto a previously unowned piece of land, cut down the trees, plow an acre, build a house, harvest the crop etc. makes you the owner of that piece of land.

I think you should stop right there, 'cuz what you say may or may not be the case, according to the law. The question you therefore need to ask, first, is what should the law be regarding claiming unclaimed land, in a rational, rights-respecting society. You claim must be (1) objectively defined i.e. there must be an official registry of claim describing your specific claim, (2) in conformity with the procedural requirements such as filing a notarized claim with relevant information plus the necessary filing fee and (3) in compliance with substantive requirements. The latter would include such things as acreage limits as we had in the US, residency requirements, the requirement to build a house, or whatever. Governments use the latter kinds of requirements for social engineering purposes, and I would say the fewer those kinds of requirements, the better. But a claim "down the center of the earth and out to 2,000 miles above the earth" would almost certainly not have objective justification in terms of the underlying "necessary for survival" principle. I do forsee the time when certain orbits can be claimed as property, subject to particular easements.

The slogan "you own what you produce" is nice, but not generally applicable to land ownership, since you don't (usually) produce the land, although the Dutch are adept at actually producing land. If you cut down the trees, you use (but don't produce) the trees, to produce the lumber (but again not the land). So the slogan doesn't get you very far in justifying a right to land.

But what is 'that piece of land'? What does it include?

See point (1). It's on the piece of paper. If the law allows you to claim sub-surface rights, and you did so, then you have the right to whatever it says. You could sell the rights to, say, 500 feet below the surface for a tunnel, leaving you the 2,000 ft zone for your oil well. You could sell your air rights about 600 Ft, which would of course limit the height of the building that you can build on your property. You don't have an automatic "right to sunshine" or any such silliness, so you can't prevent a man from building a grain elevator on his property just because it spoils the view. The proper way to guarantee the view is to buy the land that constitutes "the view" which you'd like to see. Similarly, the proper way to guarantee the pristine forest that you've grown accustomed to taking walk in is to buy the forest, likewise the lake.

May I launch a satellite with huge solar panels that darken parts of the earth?

Metaphysically impossible, I think. I'll leave it to you to do the math.

[Maarten]

Metaphysically impossible, I think. I'll leave it to you to do the math.

Well, now, let's not let our hypothetical situations get bogged down in such minute details as whether or not it is metaphysically possible.

[BrassDragon]

Property is where most people get fouled up, because they have an imprecise definition for what constitutes someone's property. Your property is what you have put work into to change it from its natural state into something useful.

Why is this the correct definition? How can you justify it?

It seems to me property should be defined as anything you're using, that's not been abandoned.

My justification is that if something is unused, and you start using it, that doesn't violate anyone's rights. But if someone is already using something, you'd have to initiate force to obtain it, which is violating their right to life.

Working from this definition of what property should be, I've been able to answer most of my property questions. For example, if you're not using the ground underneath your house where there's oil, somebody else could drill it (if they went in sideways, from below).

David, could you clarify? Are you saying there's no specific moral way of obtaining unclaimed landed property and justifying your right to keep it, other than relying on whatever governmental rules have been set up?

[DavidOdden]

Are you saying there's no specific moral way of obtaining unclaimed landed property and justifying your right to keep it, other than relying on whatever governmental rules have been set up?

I'm saying that the concept of property rights, especially as applied to that which you did not actually create (such as the land) is not perceptually self-evident, that it must be given definition in a social context, and that it is only in a particular social context ("life in a civilized society"), where there is objective law, that the concept of moral behavior and justification even makes sense. That context allows a refinement of the simplest concept of "property" (that which you actually created) to the broader concept that includes the more perceptually proximal surface rights, and the perceptually remote water and mineral rights.

So in your theory of property, can I take your car if you're not using it? You put down your laptop, and I get to take it? Can I move into your house when you're on vacation? Please tell me you see what your "use it or lose it" theory is totally wrong.

[BrassDragon]

I'm saying that the concept of property rights, especially as applied to that which you did not actually create (such as the land) is not perceptually self-evident, that it must be given definition in a social context, and that it is only in a particular social context ("life in a civilized society"), where there is objective law, that the concept of moral behavior and justification even makes sense. That context allows a refinement of the simplest concept of "property" (that which you actually created) to the broader concept that includes the more perceptually proximal surface rights, and the perceptually remote water and mineral rights.

Let me be clear on this. You're saying there's no morality outside of a civilized society?

So in your theory of property, can I take your car if you're not using it? You put down your laptop, and I get to take it? Can I move into your house when you're on vacation? Please tell me you see what your "use it or lose it" theory is totally wrong.

We've had this discussion before somewhere, which is why I always add the part about something being property "... if it's not abandoned." None of the things you mentioned are abandoned, so I'm still "using" them, just not at the moment.

You could take my car if I left it in a field and let it rot (or if I said, "I don't want this anymore (i.e. I'm abandoning it)."), and you could take my laptop if I left it in the dumpster. You couldn't take my laptop if I accidentally lost it somewhere in the library, though. I can't think of any context in which you could take my house, short of an apocalypse, because if I weren't living in it or on vacation, I'd at least be keeping it as a real estate investment.

Edited February 15, 2007 by BrassDragon

[Galileo Blogs]

Most of these land issues are really only relevant in the case of virgin land, land that has either never been used productively or land that has been abandoned. That does not diminish the importance of these issues, but does suggest that their application is limited in the developed world, where property titles have been established nearly everywhere.

Many of the other issues arise from incomplete extensions of property rights. For instance, the most glaring deficiency in U.S. property rights law centers on rights to bodies of water. My understanding* is that in most of the United States, private individuals cannot own bodies of water. They can own the land surrounding a lake, but not the lake itself. They can own the land along a river, but not the river itself. Furthermore, rights to flows of water from a river or bodies of water behind a dam are very poorly defined, if they exist at all.

As a result of these poorly defined or missing rights to water, it becomes "costless" for someone to pollute a river. The only thing stopping him is the EPA. With defined property rights to water, the property owner whose property right was violated by the pollution can simply sue the polluter.

The lack of clear property rights to flows of water also is destructive because it results in water being inefficiently utilized. Farmers or cities receive "grants" of water from the government that they have a limited ability to sell. If they cannot sell it, the rule becomes "use it or lose it". The water is wasted.

*Be warned, I am not a lawyer, so my statements about U.S. law could be off the mark.

[DavidOdden]

Let me be clear on this. You're saying there's no morality outside of a civilized society?

No, I'm saying that it's unreasonable to expect every man to be able to instantly rediscover the complex and highly fact-based reasoning that goes into generalizing the concept of property to thing that you didn't create. You presumably know why morality presupposes knowledge of a principle distinguishing "right" and "wrong".

[BrassDragon]

Many of the other issues arise from incomplete extensions of property rights. For instance, the most glaring deficiency in U.S. property rights law centers on rights to bodies of water. My understanding* is that in most of the United States, private individuals cannot own bodies of water. They can own the land surrounding a lake, but not the lake itself. They can own the land along a river, but not the river itself. Furthermore, rights to flows of water from a river or bodies of water behind a dam are very poorly defined, if they exist at all.

In my conception of property, if you're using the water, nobody can preempt that. If you use the river regularly to swim, nobody can start polluting it (to a degree that preempts your swimming) - if they do, you can sue them. Likewise, if I'm polluting the river and I got there first, you can't start swimming there and then sue me, because then you're claiming a right to preempt my use of the river as a garbage disposal.

It wouldn't make sense for people to "own" water with property deeds, because water is often a common thoroughfare, and someone can use a river to swim in while someone else can use it in a boat. Same thing with air and other common goods.

[BrassDragon]

No, I'm saying that it's unreasonable to expect every man to be able to instantly rediscover the complex and highly fact-based reasoning that goes into generalizing the concept of property to thing that you didn't create. You presumably know why morality presupposes knowledge of a principle distinguishing "right" and "wrong".

If I were a homesteader in early American history and an Indian tribe wanted to destroy my house because it's in their tribal area, I wouldn't say, "OK, you can go right ahead, since there's no way I can get you to understand property rights."

Rather, I defend what is moral, and what is in my self-interest. Period.

Morality presupposes knowledge of a principle of distinguishing "right" and "wrong," but if I've discovered that knowledge, I don't give a damn if someone else has.

It seems to me that you're saying that non-perceptual "rights" aren't valid outside the context of other people who understand them, so it seems like we have a clear disagreement. Is this what you're saying or am I misunderstanding you?

(I must be misunderstanding, because Republicans and especially Democrats are in control of national, state and local government, and they don't understand property rights, but I'm sure you still recognize my property rights - and you'd recognize that they're infringed if a law is passed to seize my land to give to developers, for example)

Edited February 15, 2007 by BrassDragon

[Galileo Blogs]

It wouldn't make sense for people to "own" water with property deeds, because water is often a common thoroughfare, and someone can use a river to swim in while someone else can use it in a boat. Same thing with air and other common goods.

Actually, a river is no more a common thoroughfare than a path through the woods is. Absolute ownership of a river is something that makes sense. If I own the river, I dictate the terms of those who pass through it on boats, and I get the benefit of the water that exists in the river. If someone upstream dumps sewage in the river, I sue him for violating my property right in the flowing water.

This type of system apparently exists in England to some degree, already. Trout fisherman own fishing rights to streams, with the result that trout can be found for fishing only 20 or 30 miles outside of London. The trout fisherman sue polluters of the streams, and they also restrict how many fishermen can fish the streams so that there are always enough trout.

Contrast this with the United States, where trout fisherman have to travel to Montana or Alaska or remote parts of Canada to find streams that aren't over-fished. That is the tragedy of the commons, applied to streams.

Finally, flows of water are quantified and categorized, regularly. Each year, specific quantities of water flow on the Colorado River are designated for consumption by farmers in California or city dwellers in Arizona, etc. Those rights are clearly defined and eminently tradeable. In fact, to a certain degree, they are traded today. However, the property right isn't properly or consistently established so that much of the water in the West is allocated on a "use it or lose it" basis. The result is an incredible waste of a valuable economic resource.

I am convinced that property rights can be established clearly and completely to all forms of water, whether stationary in lakes or behind dams, or in river flows. Property rights to air are another matter, and probably cannot be readily established.

Edited February 16, 2007 by Galileo Blogs

[BrassDragon]

I am convinced that property rights can be established clearly and completely to all forms of water, whether stationary in lakes or behind dams, or in river flows. Property rights to air are another matter, and probably cannot be readily established.

The use of a river, and the use of trout in the river, are two totally different things.

There is no way to establish a legitimate property claim on a river, because you establish letgitmate property claims by using something, and you can't "use" the entire river. (Giving the river to the first person who "claims" it or selling the river to the highest bidder are ridiculous ideas - the former for obvious reasons, the latter because the government can't just take the river from the people already using it in some way (i.e. swimming and boating) and decide it owns it and can sell it.)

Rather, because of the nature of property (the way it is related to human life), you can establish legitimate claims on certain uses of the river. If you've been swimming in it first, you should be able to sue anyone who then begins to pollute to the degree that your swimming claim is preempted.

Now, you can establish a property claim over a "commons," such as a school of fish (or whales), or a grassy spot where everyone in the village grazes their cows. Everyone who uses the "common" regularly has a legitimate usage claim, so you divide up the "commons" into even proportions and give a theoretical proportion to each of them (i.e. Jack's Whaling Company brings in 14 whales a year and thus gets a 3% claim on the herd. Same with trout fishers.) Hopefully people will sell their small claims so the resource can legitimately be protected, perhaps with a clause in the contract that guarantees them continued usage of the resource up to a certain limit to prevent extinction or overuse of the "commons," which will be enforced by the person who bought up the small claims.

Air property rights can be established the same way swimming rights are. If I breathe the air in my backyard, you can't dump it full of toxins; but you can fly a plane over my house.

[Galileo Blogs]

The main point is to get property into private hands. By doing so, wealth is created. I would not finesse such separate rights to water flows as the right to swim in it, or fish for trout, or to use the river for transportation, or to use the water for irrigation, or to use the water flows for generating electricity. Once a reasonable basis for claiming a river exists, all possible uses would accrue to the claimant. If he can't make use of some aspect of his property, he can always rent it out or sell a right to use some aspect of his property.

Land property rights are dealt with this way. Generally, when you own your land, you can do whatever on it. Turn it into a nature preserve for furbish louseworts, or build a house on it, or a dump, or a road, or whatever. As long as you don't violate the rights of your neighbors, you are free to do what you want with it. Generally, your property rights are not so narrowly defined that some uses are permitted and others belong to someone else. The exceptions are cases such as mining rights which, I would argue, are so unique that they arguably are a separate form of property right.

As for owning whales in the ocean, with modern technology that is feasible. I would argue that the ocean itself should be parceled and sold. One would have the right to do whatever with his 100 X 100 mile plot of ocean. He can trawl his plot of ocean for all forms of sea life. He can "clear-trawl" his ocean, stripping it of all sea life to sell right away, or he could moderate his haul of ocean life, allowing the sea creatures to reproduce to create life that would be harvested in the future. In this manner, the ocean-farmer becomes like George Weyerhauser, who was the first conservationist of forest land. He conserved the land out of self-interest, knowing that he would make more money overall by allowing the trees to reproduce, thereby conserving future harvests. [George Weyerhauser is an example of why the best friend of conservation is the most secure of property rights man can devise. Nothing destroys nature more than the lack of property rights, as the tragedy of the commons repeatedly attests throughout history.]

I suspect that man's legal creativity, combined with modern technologies such as global positioning satellites, could establish clear property rights even to such difficult claims as moving whale pods. With the right philosophy in place, such legal creativity could help man lay private property claims to much more of the earth than he is able to claim today. The result of such widespread ownership of private property would be an unparalleled explosion in human wealth and well-being.

[BrassDragon]

I agree with the spirit of your post ("The result of such widespread ownership of private property would be an unparalleled explosion in human wealth and well-being") but not the content.

The main point is to get property into private hands. By doing so, wealth is created. I would not finesse such separate rights to water flows as the right to swim in it, or fish for trout, or to use the river for transportation, or to use the water for irrigation, or to use the water flows for generating electricity. Once a reasonable basis for claiming a river exists, all possible uses would accrue to the claimant. If he can't make use of some aspect of his property, he can always rent it out or sell a right to use some aspect of his property.

The main point is to get property into private hands in a moral way. This is where you're missing the point. If we just wanted to get property in private hands, the government could take all un-property and auction it off. But that would be immoral, because people are already using the un-property, and thus have legitimate property claims to its use. In other words, if you take it from them, you're initiating force against them (and infringing their right to life).

Land property rights are dealt with this way. Generally, when you own your land, you can do whatever on it. Turn it into a nature preserve for furbish louseworts, or build a house on it, or a dump, or a road, or whatever. As long as you don't violate the rights of your neighbors, you are free to do what you want with it. Generally, your property rights are not so narrowly defined that some uses are permitted and others belong to someone else. The exceptions are cases such as mining rights which, I would argue, are so unique that they arguably are a separate form of property right.

Landed property can only be used for one thing at one time. That is why it's different. It's fruitless to draw an analogy between water property and land property, as you're doing, and say the former is just like the latter. Mining claims aren't so unique - it's just a case where landed property can be used in two different ways, just as water can be used in many ways, by different people, without infringing upon anyone's usage/rights.

As for owning whales in the ocean, with modern technology that is feasible. I would argue that the ocean itself should be parceled and sold.

You can't have both. What if my whales swim into your parcel? (I don't want to talk about the specifics, though, I want to express my overall point and see if there are good objections to it.)

One would have the right to do whatever with his 100 X 100 mile plot of ocean.

See, that's the thing. I already HAVE the right to do whatever I want, anywhere in the ocean. You're trying to take that away from me.

Nothing destroys nature more than the lack of property rights, as the tragedy of the commons repeatedly attests throughout history.

My conception of property rights, in which a legitimate claim can be made upon a pod of whales (thanks for "pod," btw, I was calling it a "herd" in ignorance), is the only way to save the whales, which you seem to be pretty big on. Dividing the ocean (or river) into parcels will not save schools of fishes. Point is, I agree with you that private property is the solution to saving natural resources. But you must use the correct definition of private property, the usage definition I'm advocating.

[Galileo Blogs]

If someone is using virgin property, it becomes theirs. If someone is using virgin property, no one else could come along and say it belonged to him. Government's role is merely to acknowledge the right to property that someone already established by using it.

What I am saying is that the property right that one gains is far-reaching. It encompasses far more than just the activity the person is engaged in on it. It encompasses uses that are not being exploited and future uses that haven't even been conceived of. The property owner can gain the benefit of those uses by either exploiting them himself, selling or renting the rights to use a portion of his land, or selling his land outright.

There can never be such a thing as government auctioning off property that someone has already appropriated to himself.

As for whales and such, I suspect precedent for establishing property rights to them is similar to establishing property rights to cattle on an open prairie. The cattle-owner brands his cattle and even if those cattle roam over someone else's land, those cattle still belong to the original owner. Modern technology may enable such electronic "branding" of whales, even if it is nothing more than satellite tracking of whale pods.

In any case, even imperfect property rights established to the ocean and the creatures in it would result in much greater beneficial exploitation of the ocean than having no property rights at all, where the problem of the commons pertains. Even if property rights could not reasonably be attached to whales, that would not be a problem. I suspect that property owners would form agreements among themselves dictating the terms under which whales could be harvested. It would be in their interest to conserve this resource since it would have greater value as a replicating resource than as a resource that is used up all at once.

I have never said, "Save the whales," but I suspect they are more likely to be saved in a laissez faire society than any other. But surely, this is not the essential argument of the day...

[BrassDragon]

If someone is using virgin property, it becomes theirs. If someone is using virgin property, no one else could come along and say it belonged to him. Government's role is merely to acknowledge the right to property that someone already established by using it.

What I am saying is that the property right that one gains is far-reaching. It encompasses far more than just the activity the person is engaged in on it. It encompasses uses that are not being exploited and future uses that haven't even been conceived of. The property owner can gain the benefit of those uses by either exploiting them himself, selling or renting the rights to use a portion of his land, or selling his land outright.

I agree with the first paragraph.

You haven't qualified the second paragraph. It is true that if someone is using land, that (surface) land cannot be used by anyone else legitimately, because it is metaphysically impossible. But if there is some dimension of some thing that a person is not using, that person can have no claim to ownership of it. My qualification of that statement is the fact that someone else can come along and use the other dimension without initiating force against the person using the first dimension; it is metaphysically possible. Examples of "dimensions" (a word I am just using loosely) are surface land vs. underground oil when talking about landed property; or the fact that many people can swim in a river, and the first one to come along and swim in it or boat upon it can't claim the entire thing, for all uses, all the way from the ocean to the headwaters (or even a small patch), as his (it is metaphysically possible, but not a moral application of property rights).

Now, I think we've beaten this to death. Thanks for your responses, Galileo. Let's stop going back and forth unless you have something new to add (I haven't had anything new for the last several posts).

[mrocktor]

BrassDragon,

Your understanding of property apparently is identical to mine. Would you agree with this?

Man survives by reason, by observing nature, understanding it and acting uppon it to produce material values that benefit his life. Denied the use of the results of his productive effort, man cannot survive. This is the derivation of the right to property from the right to life. What I am arguing is that denied the ability to act uppon nature, man cannot produce. Or, more specifically, denied access to that part of nature he had harnessed, man cannot produce. This extends the right to property from the results of man's effors to the resources he uses to produce them.

This formulation (...) supports "identify and harness", requiring actual use to establish ownership (and establishing ownership to the extent of the usage). From this perspective, the surveyor who finds an oil field but has no means to explore it does not own it. What he sells the developer is the knolwedge of its location - not the oil field itself which remains unowned until claimed by use.

(...)

In the case of the river, if a pioneer establishes himself midstream and extracts X amount of water for drinking, he has a claim to the extent of that usage. If he fishes as well, he has a claim to that usage. If he also uses a boat to transport his produce downriver to a town, he has a claim to that as well.

If someone moves in upriver and dumps something in the water that makes it innapropriate for drinking, the pioneer has a claim against him. If its some chemical that kills all the fish, he has a claim against him. If someone builds a dam between him and the town, he has a claim against them. These claims are based on the fact that he came first, identified and used the resource - destroying that resource violates his property.

Why does he not own the whole river in every respect? Because the whole river in every respect is not what is needed for him to be able to produce as he was. Damming the river upstream does not hurt him at all. Other fishermen up or donwstream don't hurt him unless they wipe out the fish. Other boats on the river don't hurt his ability to get to town. Even a dam between him and a town that has a lock system that can fit his boat does not impede his activities.

These rights, as all rights, do not require anyone to provide you with resources and do not allow you to establish diffuse claims. If hundreds of farms are built upstream of our pioneer's land and their byproducts collectively make the water undrinkable, he can't sue all of them collectively. If he can prove that a specific one of them has caused him damage, he has a valid claim.

[Galileo Blogs]

You haven't qualified the second paragraph. It is true that if someone is using land, that (surface) land cannot be used by anyone else legitimately, because it is metaphysically impossible. But if there is some dimension of some thing that a person is not using, that person can have no claim to ownership of it. My qualification of that statement is the fact that someone else can come along and use the other dimension without initiating force against the person using the first dimension; it is metaphysically possible. Examples of "dimensions" (a word I am just using loosely) are surface land vs. underground oil when talking about landed property; or the fact that many people can swim in a river, and the first one to come along and swim in it or boat upon it can't claim the entire thing, for all uses, all the way from the ocean to the headwaters (or even a small patch), as his (it is metaphysically possible, but not a moral application of property rights).

I agree with what you say, but I think the issue gets a little more subtle. Property, to be useful, should be free of liens or encumbrances. Also, property rights should be as clear and standardized as possible in order to facilitate sale. If one's ownership were burdened by all sorts of competing property claims for various uses, such as the right to swim on one's river, etc., it would equate to a piece of property with lots of liens on it. Because of the "liens", it would lose much its value to a new owner to whom it is sold because he would have to negotiate with all of the various "lien-holders", not just the ostensive property owner, in order to use the property in a different manner. So, a right to property should include many uses, not just the few that the original appropriator of the land used it for.

Now, having said that, some uses, such as extracting oil, are so distant from the uses of a surface piece of property, that it seems reasonable that oil rights could and should trade separately from surface property rights (which includes the sub-surface down to a certain depth). Another reason such rights can trade separately is that the owner of oil rights can extract his oil without imposing any burden whatsoever on the surface land owner. The oil producer simply drills into the reservoir from another location. I think we're in agreement on oil and similar issues of property rights.

As for some "right" such as swimming, I do not think that could confer any sort of property right on someone. It isn't productive activity, although it is enjoyable personal activity. Swimmers would have to get permission from river and lake owners to swim in their bodies of water. In practical terms, this happens everyday, when bathers buy or rent lakeside property which they use for boating or swimming on the lake.

Now, if someone is the first person to swim in a lake in a virgin land, he could stake his claim in some sort of legally-adjudicated way to all or a portion of that lake. I will leave the details of how that would work to a court or legislature presiding near such a virgin land...

***

The issue of virgin land or water really isn't a moot issue for one important reason. Federal, state and local governments are the largest landowners in the country, with much of that land existing in an unused state of nature. Furthermore, as far as I am aware, virtually all of the inland bodies of water, and all of the world's oceans, are in the public domain or owned by governments. So, at some point in the future, the occasion will emerge where huge amounts of virgin property will be brought under private ownership. My suggestion for how to do that is simple. First, give the land or water to those who have already appropriated it for private use. This is actually quite a lot of property. For example, cattle grazers who have been grazing public lands for decades should simply get the title to the property. Owners of lakefront property should simply gain ownership of the lake in front of their property.

For all of the rest of the property, I suggest the government auction it to the highest bidder, including all of the world's oceans, etc. Use that money to pay down the national debt, and use the rest of it (if any is left over) to finance the transition to a free society. Among the latter uses would be paying off social security retirees, funding for a brief period the wind-down of certain welfare programs, etc.

[DavidOdden]

If I were a homesteader in early American history and an Indian tribe wanted to destroy my house because it's in their tribal area, I wouldn't say, "OK, you can go right ahead, since there's no way I can get you to understand property rights."

Rather, I defend what is moral, and what is in my self-interest. Period.

I assume that you're talking about the time before civilization had extended to the west, so that you have no choice but to take the law into your own hands. I, on the other hand, am speaking of the civilized context, where we have a basically rights-respecting and protecting government, such as in modern America. In that case, you would call a cop, unless it's an emergency. Since we're not talking about emergencies, call a cop. If you are not living in the civilized world, of course you will do whatever you feel is needed to guarantee your survival.

Morality presupposes knowledge of a principle of distinguishing "right" and "wrong," but if I've discovered that knowledge, I don't give a damn if someone else has.

So are you saying that if you don't like some particular law or court decision, it's okay for you to use force to e.g. prevent a court order against you from being enforced? Like the dentist in New Hampshire, as far as you're concerned? What, if anything, is the difference between your view of rights, and anarchism?

It seems to me that you're saying that non-perceptual "rights" aren't valid outside the context of other people who understand them, so it seems like we have a clear disagreement. Is this what you're saying or am I misunderstanding you?

My position is that individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law. In a civilized society, we fortunately have the protection of the law, which has objectively delineated those rights and thus distinguishes correct claims that people make about having a certain right, versus people who are mistaken about what their rights are. Thus the law will state the conditions required for claiming unowned land. Of course, if you are not living in a civilized society and are struggling to survive under anarchy, the basic rule is the guy with the biggest gun wins, and his rules about claiming land will prevale, at least as long as he has the biggest gun.

[BrassDragon]

mrocktor - I agree with what you've written, in essence. There are a few small points I might change. Also, I do think someone could sue a group of farmers who are collectively polluting a stream.

Galileo - Your first pg. argues that my system would be too difficult to put in place, but if the "dimensions" of something really are that hard to deliniate, I think it would be considered "initiating force" to use an alternate dimension to one already being used. The kind of clear example, such as when there is oil far underneath surface land, is really what I'm thinking about. I don't think you should confer property rights on people who swim, because an unlimited number of people can come to swim without infringing upon the existing swimmers (generally). But I do think swimmers who have established regular use of a certain spot should be able to sue those who then come along and pollute it. I definitely agree that none of this is a moot point, but if the government claimed the ocean and then tried to sell parts of it, I'd be up in arms over it. "The ocean" broadly speaking is like the river--an unlimited number of people can travel on its surface and use it for various purposes, so there's no need for property rights to be granted; they would be illegitimate. Now, ownership of a limited resource like a whale pod is legitimate.

David - I am definitely not an anarchist, and I definitely advocate following the law. I would probably even follow "the law" if I lived in North Korea, unless by not doing so I could initiate a successful revolution. I think this is a question of what the laws about land rights ought to be, not simply what they are. In other words, what are our natural rights? - regardless of whether or not they are actually protected. It seemed to me your answer was "Whatever the government says your rights are, that's what they are." Well, of course. But what if someone asked you, what are your natural property rights, what should your property rights under law, be? Would you say they're very indeterminate, and it's basically up to the law to decide?

Edited February 17, 2007 by BrassDragon

[DavidOdden]

But what if someone asked you, what are your natural property rights, what should your property rights under law, be? Would you say they're very indeterminate, and it's basically up to the law to decide?

I am saying that this question is meaningless if it's not raised in a social context. You can't violate your own rights, so what would the question even mean? So the best I can make out is that you're talking a primitive society that hasn't formed a government. Rational men who somehow manage to grasp the concept of "private property" and "man's rights" as deriving from man's nature (as a rational being), and the consequences of the fundamental choice to exist qua man, will recognise that a man has a non-contradictory right to that which is necessary for his survival. Land would be an example of such "natural rights" property -- you may rightly claim unowned land. But further defining the exact requirements for you to claim ownership of something that you did not create, and are only using, will require an agreement, and it should be an objective one.

Some people would say that you can't claim ownership of anything that you are not actually using; other people would claim that you can claim ownership of anything that you feel is necessary for your existence; and there are many points in between. This is a huge range of opinions on the matter, which are backed up with plenty of rationalizations, uh, I mean, "reasoning". The idea of "natural rights" is based on the perceptually self-evident, considering very little context, and is designed to describe the facts true of all men, regardless of circumstance. That being the case, there simply can be no natural rights answer to questions such as whether you can take water from a river if someone lives downstream from you, or whether you can dig a hole underneath a neighbor's surface property to get at the coal. In a specific social context, these issues can be resolved, if, say, a society recognizes the right to a specifically fenced-off piece of land as a man's property and 1,000 feet below the surface, then rights-respecting people will know that since their rights cannot contradict those of the neighbor, they cannot dig sideways under the fence. If the society does not recognize below the surface as an extension of a man's property, then I can dig a sideways oil shaft under your surface rights, with no contradiction.

Normatively speaking, those laws should satisfy the requirements of man's existence: noncontradictory rational living. Noncontradictoriness is non-negotiable; objective definition is the next most basic requirement, and reference to the metaphysical facts of the land and the man's use would be next. Question such as whether an actual fence is required, as opposed to boundary stakes, would have to be determined by reference to specific facts (for instance, is it necessary for the purpose of objective definition).

[BrassDragon]

DavidOdden, you say "natural rights" are based on the perceptually self-evident. But I don't think the right to land you've settled on (which you and I both agree is a right) is perceptually self-evident; it wasn't to Native Americans, and it isn't to many people today. Rather, understanding this right requires some mental gymnastics. If mental gymnastics (correct integration) can lead to understanding this "natural right," I don't understand why that can't be extended further, if done correctly (regardless of how many incorrect opinions there are). I've done just that with the "usage" rule, which I'm sure isn't unique to my thinking. I don't see any incorrect step in the following:

1) Man's nature demands that he be free from initiation of force (this isn't a real starting point, but it can be for the sake of this example since I think we all agree on it)

2) If something is unused, you're not initiating force if you begin to use it; you're not breaking anyone's rights; hence, you can use it.

3) If you're then using something, someone else cannot start to use it without infringing upon your rights. So, it effectively becomes your property (under the right system of laws)

This would provide an objective way to figure out, say, if it's acceptable for me to drill oil sideways underneath someone's house - and if there is an "agreement" (law) about the issue, it ought to respect the acceptability of me doing that.

Note that this *is* a claim about the rights of all men, regardless of circumstance. You can apply it to circumstances, but it is a universal natural rights claim, and I'd say, like any natural right, it is *not* perceptually self-evident.