Galileo Blogs

One of my favorite authors, Vladimir Bukovsky, was a Russian dissident. He spent 12 years in a variety of Soviet gulag prisons and psychiatric hospitals. The latter was not to treat any sort of mental illness; he had none. It was solely to torture him and other dissidents. He called World War II [quoting from memory] " the great war to determine the color of our concentration camps, red or brown." His point was that it made very little difference to slave-citizens such as himself which ideology won; their concentration camps were the same. That is my perspective on this debate. I don't want to imply there isn't an answer. I don't know what the answer is, but whether the concentration camps are green (environmentalism) or red (the blood of Christ), life on earth would still be hell. Both ideologies are evil. *** A disturbing trend is the union of these two philosophies. Remember the silly campaign of last year, "What kind of car would Jesus drive?" Of course, the only thing Jesus rode was an ass (donkey). Still, the campaign induced environmentalist guilt in all those Jesus-freaks driving their SUVs with "Praise Jesus" bumper stickers on their rear ends. Asses... hmm.

Well, Mweiss, at least you're consistent. Keeping out "them Mexicans" through anti-immigration laws fits in with keeping out the riff-raff (as you define them) through zoning laws. Argued through ad hominem, implying that one's age somehow determines the validity of one's arguments. Yours is not a world I want to live in. That is coming from an "older Objectivist."

An excellent Twilight Zone episode depicted nearly exactly what you describe. Two human astronauts land on an alien planet. One of them secretly discovers a tiny ant-like civilization of rational beings. He decides to use his much greater physical power over them to dominate the alien ants. In fear, they build a huge totem of him, which he destroys at will to show how powerful he is. When the evil astronaut shows his companion the ant-civilization and what he has done, the rational astronaut is appalled. He displays the rational sentiment you describe. It is a great episode. I recommend it next time it is on TV.

Well, when the evil aliens attack us, I will volunteer for the earth self-defense force. Of course, if they are here "to serve man", I will cooperate in every possible way.

This strikes me as a good description of the values gained from hunting. Although I have not hunted myself, I have experienced some of the same types of enjoyment in fishing and camping trips. Rights really are a negative concept, and only apply to humans. Individual rights mean that the use of force to harm another person or his property is forbidden. That's it. There is all kinds of behavior that can be immoral, but does not violate someone's rights. One can debate whether hunting is moral. To me, it is clear that it is. It is enjoyable for those who like it.

Why do you want to kill a squirrel? Since animals have no rights, it would be your right to do so, but I cannot fathom why you would want to do it. To me, this seems to fall into the realm of that which is legally permissible, but morally suspect. I have not given this issue much thought and have had very limited contact with hunters, so my perspective is limited. Hunting, to me, seems rational, although I would not want to do it. I can understand the challenge of stalking a prey with camouflage, the skill of marksmanship and, possibly, eating the kill, although this doesn't seem necessary. Nevertheless, just to idly kill squirrels seems, well, demented. What is the value you gain from doing it? If it's marksmanship, you can gain that at a firing range. If the squirrels are not a pest, why kill squirrels? *** On a separate note, I believe it is immoral to senselessly torture animals. Certainly, the torturer cannot gain a rational value by doing so. I think there could also be a case for making it illegal, certainly if it is done in front of other people, since it would constitute a form of psychological assault on another person. Whether it should be illegal if done privately on your own property, I don't know. If it were legal, it would fall under the category of immoral behavior that is legally permitted because it doesn't harm other people.

I completely agree. The argument applies whether the first person knew the second person or not. This is a good point. That is why the operative concept has to be force. Harm can only occur if someone uses force against another person, which clearly has not happened in your example. The term "causes harm", if applied loosely, could imply that someone causes someone harm by failing to help that person. However, a failure to help is not causing someone harm, since no force is involved. Interestingly, if failing to help someone is to cause harm to that person, then the welfare state is morally justifiable. The state, acting as our agent, helps everyone. If it failed to so, it would be "harming" the people.

I don't think you're nit-picking at all. However, I have to think this through to provide an answer. I'll just say that in the example you give, the first person has not harmed the second person. He didn't use physical force to coerce him in any way. In fact, he is completely unaware that the second person exists at all. As for what is harm, my quick answer is that it is an action that causes physical injury to a person, or which forcefully prevents him from exercising his right to property. The latter right consists of his freedom of action to use his property in a life-sustaining or enhancing manner.

Speaking broadly, I agree with DavidOdden that property rights only apply to a society of men. It is a meaningless concept if you are living alone on a deserted island. The question then becomes, by what standard is something to be considered property? A key aspect of that standard is the idea of exclusivity. A right to property is only meaningful if the use of that property necessarily excludes another person from using it at the same time. I have a right to my land because my using it precludes someone else from using it. I do not have the right to air because my breathing it does not preclude someone else from breathing it. So, to productively use the first resource (land), there must be legal recognition of my property right in it, whereas there can be no legal recognition of a property right to air. The law governing uses of both types of resources -- property and valuable non-property -- would hinge on one key idea: you cannot harm your neighbor. So, if in using my property I harm someone's ability to use and enjoy his property, I have committed a tort, and my neighbor can sue me. The same principle would apply if I hurt my neighbor by polluting a common resource such as air. The latter issue, pollution of air or other common non-property resources, is very complex, and probably deserves its own thread. But the overall principle is the same in all of these cases. Harming another person or his property is what is forbidden. Using the standard of not harming one's neighbor, I do not see why someone cannot "pollute" both his own property and non-property, as long as it does not result in harm to someone. So, if you strip mine your land, and leave it scarred and barren, that is fine, because your neighbors are not harmed. If one is living in a society where property rights haven't been completely defined, and you pollute vacant land owned by no one, that is not a problem. Polluting the air in a desolate region where the polluted air does not cause demonstrable and meaningful harm to individuals is not a problem. One can even imagine a semi-science fiction type scenario. Let's say you figure out a way to hurl the earth's garbage to the moon. Unless the moon has been claimed as property, I don't see why you couldn't find the nearest convenient crater and fill it with trash. None of these actions violate anyone's rights and are valid, especially because they are actions taken in furtherance of one's own life.

Kendall, Nice blog, and blog article. Your point that companies in certain industries have a natural economy of scale that is often global in size is a good one. Antitrust seeks to atomize companies into inefficiently small entities. Extreme antitrust has already been tried in Communist China where they tried to put micro steel mills in every village. The only good outcome from that was that it helped Deng Xiaoping realize that Communism had failed and encouraged him to say, "To get rich is glorious." [Probably not an exact quote; I am quoting from memory.] Needless to say, it destroyed Communist China's steel production. Antitrust regulation fails to understand that the natural economy of scale of an industry may call for only several competitors, each of whom is global in scale. Antitrust regulators fail to understand this because they are overly-fixated on one dimension of the economy: prices. They worry that prices are too high or too low, and the tool they use for such worrying is a flawed, rationalistic theory: the theory of perfect competition. Much has been written on this flawed theory by Objectivists and others, most recently in The Abolition of Antitrust, edited by Gary Hull. What antitrust regulators are neglecting or evading or ignoring is the importance of an adequate return on capital. An adequate return on capital occurs when there are few competitors, especially in the type of capital-intensive, commoditized industries such as airlines or chemicals or utilities or steel-making, etc. Wall Street practitioners inherently understand this idea, although they fail to generalize and come out publicly against the antitrust laws. They understand these ideas because they champion investing in industries with "barriers to entry" or "pricing power" or in small, "under the radar" segments, i.e., segments that are not on the radar screens of the antitrust boys. One may wonder if having only a few competitors is somehow bad or destructive of value. What about competition? Well, competition isn't only on the basis of price. Competition also exists on the dimension of innovation, and in the form of competing for capital. Capital flows to its highest uses in a capitalist society. If returns in a particular industry are really high, innovators will enter that industry and figure out a new way to provide the service or product that is better and/or cheaper. A historical example is how early electric utilities booted out the gas-light providers of city light. One "monopoly" booted out another "monopoly" by providing a better product at a lower price. Capital will always seek out these opportunities to boot out monopolies. The capitalists, entrepreneurs and scientists do so by offering better products at lower prices, from which we all benefit. Tying this discussion back to airlines, airlines today are suffering from chronic returns on capital that are too low. As a result, there is insufficient investment in airlines. Given that, should we be surprised that passengers from time to time get stuck on planes? But, you say, the price they pay for tickets is cheap. Indeed, it is... Well, even that really isn't true. I would argue that if airlines could merge, and if all other components of the industry were in private hands, service would be better and prices would be cheaper. Ironically, by fixating themselves on price and claiming to be acting on behalf of "consumers", the antitrust cops not only make service worse and innovation less frequent, but they usually cause prices to be higher.

Well, consider who owns the gates and who sets the rules for movement on the tarmac, when planes can open doors, etc. I agree with David Odden's comments. If the entire system were privately operated for profit, and free of the morass of FAA and other rules, these types of incidents would be rare. The profit-seeking behavior of all parties would ensure that. And when such incidents did occur, passengers could sue for redress if their contract with the airline was violated or if they were harmed in a manner that the courts would validate. As for waiting on tarmacs, I had one multi-hour experience on the tarmac myself (Northwest Airlines). It was hellish and extremely frustrating because we were only about 30 feet from the gate. If it had lasted much longer, I think there would have been a revolt and passengers would have tried to open the doors and activate the emergency slides to get the hell out of the plane!!

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.

Well, let's leave the discussion of property rights out of this topic. As your statements make clear, the true objective of zoning laws is to keep the "riff-raff" out.

The only bill of rights an airline passenger needs is the right to life, liberty and property (or the pursuit of happiness). When such rights are secured, airlines are free to compete to provide the best possible service to passengers. Not just airlines, but also privately owned airports and air traffic control systems are also free to compete to provide the best possible service. In America, the latter two components of air travel are government-owned and operated, with the same efficiency as the post office or the public schools. And the airlines, while nominally privately owned and operated, operate under a welter of rules that preclude sufficient capital being invested in the industry, with the result that service, well... sucks. A private air traffic control system would efficiently schedule flights and proactively take into account weather problems so that the odds that planes are piled up like in the JetBlue situation are significantly reduced. Additionally, privately-owned airports would be incentivized to have sufficient facilities available to accommodate the air traffic they get. Privately owned airports would also auction off or sell landing rights, thereby assuring that too many airplanes won't land at the same time. Finally, in a laissez-faire society, airlines would be free to merge and collude, both of which would ensure that airfares were high enough so that they could afford to invest in enough equipment to ensure that passengers had a good experience on the airlines in all sorts of weather conditions. Today there are too many airlines and the prices they charge are too low so that cut-rate carriers such as JetBlue can only survive by offering service that is too stripped down. Passengers want the best balance between price and quality/safety. Because of restrictions against mergers and collusion, what they are offered is tilted too far in the direction of low prices and not enough in the direction of quality of service. On a broader level, the JetBlue situation is an example of how "controls breed controls." The government hamstrings the ability of airlines to provide the best quality service by owning the airports and air traffic controls sytem and doing a lousy job of running them. They also hamstring the airlines by forcing them to compete only on price and less so on quality of service because they do not allow the airlines to merge and/or collude on prices. So, government intervention causes the problem. What is the solution proposed? More government intervention in the form of an arbitrary edict called the "passenger bill of rights."

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...

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.

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.

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.

For a moment, I thought Deuteronomy was a book of the Koran. It all seemed so familiar. But then I realized, no burkas. The women of the Chosen People really did have it better!

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.

(This topic was split from the "Environmentalism versus Christianity: Which do you think is the greater threat?" debate proposal.) I don't qualify, because I only have 79 forum posts, but I will gladly watch this debate from the sidelines. I am looking for some good quotes from Scripture from Mister Swig to defend his viewpoint!

This is a strawman argument. The answer to this type of situation is that you take the offending party to court for violating your right to property. There are common-sense standards of what constitutes a tort that have been established over centuries. Clearly, one's property right is violated when noise beyond a certain level is created that interferes with my ability to use and enjoy my home. Zoning these days is rarely used as some sort of grand protector of property rights. Rather, it is used frequently to violate the rights of property owners. For instance, suppose I live in a 20-story building and don't want my views of the Empire State Building blocked? I contribute some money to local councilmen who enact a new zoning law to "down-size" residential development in the area that could block my view. This happens every day in New York and clearly violates the rights of all property owners whose property is now worth less in the "down-zoned" area. There are common-sense principles of torts that address all manner of offenses from neighbors against oneself, including situations like the one you describe where someone's septic tank pollutes the groundwater that you drink. The solution to the type of problem you cite is to be found in the courts. Using principles of common law (backed up by a rational philosophy), the courts decide if a violation of your rights has occurred and, if so, what the remedy will be. Zoning laws only exist to violate the rights of property owners. They are abused everyday. They are not a solution to alleged or actual violations of your property rights. If they were the answer, then what you have is gang rule. My gang tries to enact zoning laws that benefit me, while your gang tries to enact zoning laws that benefit you. Objectivity and individual rights are not a consideration.

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution: The portion that I have bolded is clear enough to me. Of course, a roomful of Clinton-type lawyers who can argue about the meaning of "is" can probably construe "public" to mean "private". Having said that, I agree that a Constitution of a laissez faire society would have to contain no exceptions such as this one, which allows the government to violate rights. Also, "public" is a notoriously vague term. Since rights are only possessed by individuals, there really is no such thing as the "public interest". The "public interest" has been used to justify all sorts of extensions of government power. E.g.: It is in the public interest to control inflation, so wage-and-price controls are necessary. It is in the public interest to alleviate poverty, so welfare programs are necessary. It is in the public interest to have an educated citizenry, so public education is necessary. Etc. I am not a student of the Constitution, but from my layman's knowledge of history and law, it still seems like a remarkable, albeit imperfect, achievement. As the charter of a semi-free Republic (but still the most free society ever established), it appears to stand head-and-shoulders above any prior governmental charter from any earlier period of history. When the new Constitution is written, I suspect much of it will stand on the "shoulders" of the current Constitution. If anyone on the blog who has further knowledge of the subject cares to elaborate (whether in agreement or disagreement), I welcome your comments.

That is the question a religionist cannot answer.

I was addressing more the structure of our government -- the system of three branches and the checks-and-balances between them. That structure seems like a good one to retain in a free society. As for the language of the Constitution itself, it does allow those things you mentioned. There is no doubt the Constitution of a free society would contain no such latitude for government to violate our rights. However, despite its shortcomings, the Constitution historically was interpreted to provide far greater protection of property rights, before the Depression-era Supreme Court re-interpreted it to allow almost unlimited governmental power to regulate. Also, the First Amendment protections of freedom of religion and speech would seem to preclude any government money being used to advance a religious agenda, and any restriction of the right of free speech. However, the Constitution has more recently been interpreted by the Supreme Court to allow government-funded religious charities and a growing array of restrictions on free speech via the campaign finance laws, among others. Even the takings clause of the Constitution which permits takings of private property for a "public use" has been recently interpreted by the Supreme Court to allow a taking of someone's private property to be given to another private individual. That interpretation clearly violates the plain language of the Constitution. My point is that the dominant philosophy of a culture will determine how a Constitution is interpreted, whether it is interpreted to allow more freedom or more power for government. We can see this process at work with our Constitution. Certainly, our Constitution needs to be significantly improved, and it will be when our culture learns to understand and embrace freedom.