China has decided to build a hydroelectric dam, which is now present and functional, located upstream of the Mekong river. For those who are not similar with the geographic location, Mekong river runs from China down to Southeast Asia, upstream to downstream. The reason why China has built the dam is because of water shortages. Mekong river is essential for southeast Asia’s many countries (Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, etc) and industries, namely fishing and farming. Tension has been rising around that region for the past decade or two. Not to mention that China also export pollution to neighboring nations.
My question is, what would happen in a scenario where there is a squeeze in water. If we run out of oil, we can use alternative energies. But Water has no substitutes, if we run out of water, we all die in a few days (Yes that does include Chuck Norris).
Can war be justified in the basis of self-preservation? (The answer is of course, yes).
What are some of your views given the situation? What would you do?
Doesn’t it rain, a lot, in Southeast Asia? So the water in the Mekong river is not really for drinking per se but for other stuff. So the self preservation argument really has no merit.
Now assuming that Southeast Asia is a desert, which it definitely is not, and assuming that the only source of water into the area comes from the part of Mekong river prior to the dam, which it probably does not. In the USA 40% of the water entering Louisiana in the Mississippi comes from other river system mainly the Ohio. Then violence is still not justified and simply paying the Chinese to give you some water would be best or paying someone to de-salinate water would be less cheap but much cheaper than a war. So war is never an answer in a financial sense. For example this web site had the victors in WWI finally being paid off after 90 years.
How about a moral sense? Have the Chinese aggressed against the people down the river? Maybe and if we had real freedom these people could pursue action for compensation from the folks owning the dam. But again this is not the situation where governments own things. So the people of this area are completely screwed unless their government could bring some pressure on the government of China to change the way they run the dam.
Suppose I own property consisting on a small length of a river and some land alongside. I use this river to run a water mill and to water my crops. Suppose someone buys land and river upstream and starts bottling it and shipping it off, reducing my river to 10% of the original flow.
I think you can make the argument that I have homesteaded the river’s flow and that the water bottler is violating my property rights. The water bottler should be forced to stop or pay me restitution. The use of force is acceptable to enforce my property rights.
Running out per se might not matter- but the big bogey man is China first opening the bypass gates 100% for several days, then shutting them 100% for some time and refilling the reservoir, causing a huge flood, then no water- or just restricting flow to the point that it dries up before leaving China, then floooding every so often to prevent the over spill, (then continue to fill with even more outlandish possibilities of China going “rogue”)
Let’s see what would happen in a free market: Han has a house upstream to Malay. Now Han, shrewd guy that he is, builds a microdam to provide his house with electricity, thus cutting the water supply of Malay’s house. Has Malay’s property rights been abused? Certainly, I’d say. Can Malay force Han to destroy the dam (or else require payment for forfeiting his property to the whole stream)? Sure. Whether or not Malay can buy water form other sources, or has 5 more streams in his estate, is immaterial: his property rights have been violated. Period.
Thus, SEA countries would be justified in blowing the damn thing without notice, much like raids without notice. Of course no civilians would have to be hurt, the pilot flying the mission would have to be voluntarily there, and not drafted and the financing of the mission should be voluntary (hard to see how this condition could be met), but should these conditions be met, I’d certainly say that Malaysia would be justified in blowing up the damn (no pun intended) thing.
Alas, in the real world, has nukes, and the other guys don’t, so this is immaterial. But ideally…
Assuming that the China and the rest of the Asian nations lived under an ideal Free Market, without statist interventions and distortions, wouldn’t the Chinese actually be justified in what they were doing to the river? They do own the land they are utilizing and the water has technically been transferred onto there property, so once there, is it not a property owner’s privilege to do what he pleases with it? The people down the river may have homesteaded a part of the river, but the water flow comes from external property, property they have no claim to. Once the water is on there land or if they bought it from it’s owner, it is their’s to do as they please with, but prior to that it is either unused or it is someone else’s property. I don’t think the people downriver have a legitimate claim to damages. If one wants the river to keep flowing as it always has then one should homestead the entire river, not just a piece of it.
I agree with you, but unfortunately for those Southeast Asians, they have no means of getting another source for their industries, which they highly are dependent on. I doubt that they have the ability to desalinate salt water. These are very poor nations, and in addition to that, what would happen if there was an accident that somehow pollutes the water coming down the stream? What if there’s an accident that releases a flood that kills thousands of people. That becomes their problem, a major one.
Which makes me think if we can really privatize something that essential. Perhaps some things are better left for nature to decide?
Regarding aggression, don’t you think that this can be considered as an embargo? An embargo is a declaration of war, as I believe many people will agree with me on this. If you prevent goods or services from entering a country, that is an act of aggression, no?
I like the fact that you bought up the WWI debt. I can use that argument for future discussions.
Assuming that the China and the rest of the Asian nations lived under an ideal Free Market, without statist interventions and distortions, wouldn’t the Chinese actually be justified in what they were doing to the river? They do own the land they are utilizing and the water has technically been transferred onto there property, so once there, is it not a property owner’s privilege to do what he pleases with it? The people down the river may have homesteaded a part of the river, but the water flow comes from external property, property they have no claim to. Once the water is on there land or if they bought it from it’s owner, it is their’s to do as they please with, but prior to that it is either unused or it is someone else’s property. I don’t think the people downriver have a legitimate claim to damages. If one wants the river to keep flowing as it always has then one should homestead the entire river, not just a piece of it.
If I own a piece of the stream, and you dump radioactive waste on your share, which is upstream form mine, does thin not constitute aggression? If it does, how can you cutting my water supply differ? Sure, you only act in your part of the stream, but the effects are reflected in my part.It is my part which has been changed by you, without my consent. Does it matter whether you build a dam in your place, or just came over and built a dam in my share of the stream? The effects are the same, and effects are all that is needed (plus causality, of course) for us to have aggression.
So if you want to build a dam, it is you who must purchase the whole stream, not at all me, just as if you want to build an open-top disco house with hammering techno music all night long, it is you who must purchase the neighborhood, and not the neighborhood which must purchase your place, although the disco thing is entirely within your property border.
Yes, Dumping something on someone’s land would be aggression, but that is not what the dam would necessarily be doing. The effects of the dam would no doubt change the property of the downstreamers, but I don’t think that changes in someone else’s property by an non-owner is the issue, but the way in which the change occurred. If the dam reduces the flow of water downstream this is not an invasion of property rights, because the water I contained was not owned by the downstreamers. It is not their water supply, but a water supply, one which some of them may have used, but that is a non -issue. The flowing water came from someone else’s property (the Upstreamers), it was someone else’s. To use a different example, what if two Land holders owned land on a large hill. One of the Land holders, lets call him A, owns land further up the hill. The second land holder, She’ll be B, owns land right next A but further down the hill. This particular hill tends to erode a lot, with dirt running down the hillside by the buckets. Person B likes this, in fact, she bought the land specifically because of this fact, however person A doesn’t and decides to build a wall to contain the eroding dirt and level his property out. Now Person B no longer has dirt running down by the buckets onto her land. This has resulted in changing her land, does she have the right to stop him? What about person A’s claim on the dirt? He has attempted to keep it in his possession, after it had either originated or eroded onto his land. I think the difference between the examples given by yourself and mine are that yours are examples of people expelling things onto others property while mine is about preventing things from entering others property (things that those preventing it have ownership claims to). The former is an act of aggression, the latter is not. Just some thoughts, I might have to ask more about this in a new thread, I’m not sure if this is staying on topic.
^What Merlin said. Great response. The point is that you can be next door to me on your property blaring techno music so that the whole town can hear it, but in a dogmatic “your property, your business” sense, you can’t do anything against them. There are reasonable limits where your prosperity is being interfered with. Of course peace is more useful and more economic than violence and I’m sure in a neighborhood there is probably some type of contractual agreement not to do something like that.
China would basically have to homestead the entire river or buy the entire river in order to claim ownership of it. Basically, they’re building a dam and the other SE Asian countries are saying, “hey, we were using that too!”
Just like pollution, you have homesteaded a certain level of air quality and oxygen level. If your neighbors starts sucking all the oxygen out of the air on his property such that it damages the air quality on your property, your rights have been violated.
You blaspheme! You forget that rain falls because Chuck Norris has exited the sauna and the water vapor condensing off his super-heated skin rises to become clouds and send rain upon the good people of the earth.