Difficult situations in property rights

Economics Political Theory
1

After reading some of the documents on mises.org about property rights, I’ve come up with several property conflict situations that I can’t reason out the proper solution to. I’m interested in what you think about them.

In all of the examples below, assume that I originally homesteaded some land and then, (if applicable) you moved near me later.

  • You are located far upstream from me (500 miles or more). You divert the river so that it no longer flows through my property. You have some economic reason to do this; you’re not just malicious. Have you “stolen” my river?
  • You are collecting natural gas near me using hydraulic fracturing. This poisons the aquifers in the area, making my well unusable.
  • You own all of the land in a perimeter around mine. You build a giant impenetrable concrete fence around my entire property (just to annoy me). I can’t get in or out of my property. Do I have any recourse?
  • Your property is right next to mine. You make your land the perfect habitat for deer and give them constant supplies of food year-round. Now both of our properties are completely flooded with deer.
  • You purposefully infect your deer with chronic wasting disease, and my deer catch it. Now I can’t safely eat deer gotten from my property.
2

Private DROs.

For more info, you can read http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks/PracticalAnarchy.aspx (free pdf/audio book)

Because I doubt any member will give you a long answer.. I assume you wouldn’t be satisfied with my first sentence :smiley: So yeah, if you want deeper explanation, read a book.

Maybe other member will give you other (or even better) examples of the books/articles/essays that you can read.

3

I’m already in favor of private defense companies and anarcho-capitalism. I’m just tring to determine the moral side of these property issues.

4

You mean, is it moral for somone to pollute or exploit his neibhours?

Well, I assumed first that you want a more technical answer, how people thorugh DROs could solve these problems. And that book (Practical Anarchy) is really a good material. But I am sure there are others too, so wait till someone see this thread :slight_smile:

5

You are located far upstream from me (500 miles or more). You divert the river so that it no longer flows through my property. You have some economic reason to do this; you’re not just malicious. Have you “stolen” my river?

If you previously “owned” the river, then yes, but I personally do not believe in land ownership. However for you to buy a house near the river you would like to be insured (through DRO) first that this situation won’t happen. So this is a possible solution.

You are collecting natural gas near me using hydraulic fracturing. This poisons the aquifers in the area, making my well unusable.

You get insurance in case of pullution too :slight_smile: also a possible solution.

You own all of the land in a perimeter around mine. You build a giant impenetrable concrete fence around my entire property (just to annoy me). I can’t get in or out of my property. Do I have any recourse?

How one can aquire a land around you in a first place? Fortunatly, the very similar example is mentioned in “Practical Anarchy”, the only difference is that it is about roads:

OKAY – HERE’S A SCENARIO FOR YOU: A GUY BUILDS A ROAD THAT COMPLETELY
ENCIRCLES A SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THEN CHARGES $1 MILLION FOR
ANYONE TO CROSS THAT ROAD. ISN’T HE HOLDING EVERYONE WHO LIVES IN THAT
NEIGHBORHOOD HOSTAGE?

This is fundamentally impossible. First of all, no one is going to buy a house in a neighborhood
unless they are contractually guaranteed access to roads. Thus it will be impossible for anyone to
completely encircle the neighborhood. Secondly, even if it were possible, it would be a highly risky
investment. Can you imagine going to investors with a business plan that said: “I’m going to try to
buy all the land that surrounds the neighborhood, and then charge exorbitant rates for anyone to
cross that land.” No sane investor would give you the money for such a plan. The risk of failure
would be too great, and no DRO would enforce any contract that was so destructive, unpopular and
economically unfeasible. DROs, unlike governments, must be appealing to the general population. If
a DRO got involved with the encircling and imprisonment of a neighborhood, it would become so
unpopular that it would lose far more business than it could potentially gain. (Practical Anarchy, p. 49)

Your property is right next to mine. You make your land the perfect habitat for deer and give them constant supplies of food year-round. Now both of our properties are completely flooded with deer.

Shoot the deer, get free meet :slight_smile: Again, who stops you from making a fence?

You purposefully infect your deer with chronic wasting disease, and my deer catch it. Now I can’t safely eat deer gotten from my property.

You deer? Do you owned them in a first place? Again, the possible solution is a simple fence. Furthermore, who would want to poison deers? Lunacy. I can imagine thousands of such scenarios. Poisoning water suply, poisoning food, poisoning air, sending poison in letters etc etc etc. It is literally impossible to know every solution for every idiotic (forgive me my language) scenario.

Stop thinking about such improbable scenarios, you will feel better.

6

I mean:

If you were to legally judge the cases I mentioned in the OP (or, with anarcho-capitalism, you were chosen to arbitrate by the parties’ defense companies), how would you decide? I want to know what the “accepted” interpretation of property rights is (among this community), when applied to these border cases.

7

Again, I am not able to give you a deeper explanation. It would be easier and more valuable for you to read on said topics yourself and find the answer. :slight_smile:

8

The libertarian idea of homesteading extends beyond just making claim over a section of the Earth. You can also homestead the right to travel through a property, you can homestead a certain level of river water flow, and you can homestead a certain level of wildlife (and wildlife health)

In all your examples your homesteaded rights have been violated (even if your direct property hasn’t been infringed upon). You have the right to be compensated (according to libertarian punishment) for your lost property rights.