Pollution as a Rights Violation

[Vik]

I know of four aspects of property rights:

the right to any benefit from the property

the right to the disposal of the property

the right to exclude others from the use of the property

the right to transfer or sell the property

1. Are these enough to cover rights violations such as damage to another's property?

2. How should we classify impact to the private owner's ability to enjoy the property, e.g. pollution?

[TrueMaterialist]

I wonder why no one has challenged this yet, but I have a pretty good idea as to why.

[2046]

I wonder why no one has challenged this yet, but I have a pretty good idea as to why.

Why, do share.

I know of four aspects of property rights:

the right to any benefit from the property

the right to the disposal of the property

the right to exclude others from the use of the property

the right to transfer or sell the property

1. Are these enough to cover rights violations such as damage to another's property?

2. How should we classify impact to the private owner's ability to enjoy the property, e.g. pollution?

1. Isn't the idea that it's the physical invasion that is important here, which necessarily impairs the use and disposal of one’s property? (Cf. Mossoff, What is Property? Putting the Pieces Back Together, p. 432 "The connection between the court’s decision and the integrated theory is clear: the reason why a municipality should be held liable for throwing water onto a person’s property, or for creating a stagnant, diseased pool nearby, is that these conditions necessarily impair the use of one’s property.") Does not damage to one's property interfere with one's possession and ability to exclude?

2. As either a trespass, or a nuisance. (Cf. Rothbard, Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution, section 11 "Air Pollution: Law and Regulation," "We have established that everyone may do as he wishes provided he does not initiate an overt act of aggression against the person or property of anyone else. Anyone who initiates such aggression must be strictly liable for damages against the victim, even if the action is 'reasonable' or accidental. Finally, such aggression may take the form of pollution of someone else's air, including his owned effective airspace, injury against his person [trespass], or a nuisance interfering with his possession or use of his land." Also see section 9, and footnotes 54 and 55.)

[Vik]

1. Isn't the idea that it's the physical invasion that is important here, which necessarily impairs the use and disposal of one’s property? ... Does not damage to one's property interfere with one's possession and ability to exclude?

Absolutely. The physical invasion violates the right to disposal.

My question was what more was needed to properly identify the nature of the rights violation.

2. As either a trespass, or a nuisance.

This is interesting.

Isn't freedom from interference broader than right to disposal?

Does "nuisance" touch on an aspect that the four I mentioned do not cover?

[Greebo]

I wonder why no one has challenged this yet, but I have a pretty good idea as to why.

Cause it was posted on Saturday and you replied on a Sunday?

[2046]

Absolutely. The physical invasion violates the right to disposal.

My question was what more was needed to properly identify the nature of the rights violation.

Well perhaps I still don't quite get the question then. I would think it just goes back to the whole reason for the right to property in the first place, being that it coercively interferes with your ability to use your property to affect your values in such a way that is necessary for your general flourishing. I don't know if freedom from interference is broader than merely the right to disposal, if we look at all of these aspects of property rights in an integrated fashion, like the same way we do with all of the individual rights themselves (for more of criticism on the "bundle theory" of property versus the "integrated theory" see that Mossoff paper in previous post.)

But if that answer was off base, then perhaps you can help by better framing the context in which the problem you are confronting arises.

Does "nuisance" touch on an aspect that the four I mentioned do not cover?

Well, again I'm not sure, if we consider possession and use the same thing as those four things, then no not really, as far as I can tell.

[Atlas-]

In answer to the original question of "Pollution as a Rights violation" I would say unless it's being pumped inot you're house then no. Complaining about a factory because it lowers the value of you're porperty is like stopping the building of a skyscrpaer to preserve you're view.

I wonder why no one has challenged this yet, but I have a pretty good idea as to why.

And the prize for pointless post of the week goes to...