Homesteading the Sea

Economics Political Theory
1

Ok, I have a question - having just come back from the surf…

What is the case - if someone does NOT want something to be changed / homesteaded? i.e the local surf break.

They do NOT want anyone to homestead the sand, or build objects, peers, platforms etc. that would ruin the break, waves etc.

I have heard about Block’s negative homesteading (explained by him at end of Abortion lecture - but I don’t think that applies)

This does have a real life application, “Kirra” used to be one a world famous beach break here in Queensland, Australia. Then dredging took place in one area, and all the sand was dumped in another place, which totally ruined the break.

How can you homestead something like the sea, or sand or ocean, so that you can claim you have “ownership of it” - mixing your labour with it, so that then - no-one else can alter it, but by your direct action, if you were to take it - it would ruin your “property”… or the thing you didn’t want to change or alter.

I guess that isn’t worded too correctly but I hope you get my overall point.

Whats the solution here? Thanks.

Floating libertarian island funded
2

You are defining homesteading in the lockean sense of mixing one’s labor with the property. Kinsella posted an article here a while back arguing that this is a flawed conception of homesteading and that the standard ought to be one of first use of the property, not mixing of one’s labor with it. Does that solve your dilema?

3

Kinsella has mentioned before that the Relevant Technological Unit (RTU) (something Rothbard suggested in his article on air pollution) could be used as a standard for the level of change that must be wrought on a resource to bring it under one’s control, but I’m not sure how that’d work with the sea. Rothbard covers homesteading the oceans in FANL for anyone interested. Been a while since I’ve read it though.

4

Here is the section from For a New Liberty where Rothbard talks about property rights for oceans, air and such.

I would be interested in a link to the Kinsella article mentioned. It seems like Rothbard here just makes an argument for private property of the seas, without explaining how it is claimed… or whatever you call it.

I see why the state leasing to polluters is awful, but I still don’t understand the issue of “appropriation” or previous ownership. It is kind of my one sticking point about a stateless society (not that I disagree, but am undecided and uninformed). There are some other questions about free market environmentalism that seemed to go unanswered here recently too. The federal government owns nearly 30% of all US territory, and that probably doesn’t even count states’ or offshore claims.

5

Mixing labor is just a metaphor for first use, much like the invisible hand is a metaphor for economic calculation.

6

People who contest resources will know what the relevant technological unit of the resource is that they need. Then it’s up to the arbitrator to decide who was there first.

In the case of the ocean this will likely imply huge ranch-like estates of ocean, but the principal difference between ocean ranching and land ranching is that to travel on the ocean you need only to be on the surface, thus not touching anyone’s property. The entire ocean could be privatized without sea lanes being affected in any way.

7

Kinsella’s mentioned it in blogposts. Rothbard explicitly mentions it in the article on the law and air pollution.

Good point.

8

Are trying to ask “How can you defend a homesteaded space on the sea?”

I think the problem with your question is that you are placing too many conditions upon what constitutes homesteading.

If you are just asking “How can you homestead something like the sea?” then the answer is simple: you homestead the sea by simply declaring a certain three-dimensional area is yours. In fact, whether we recognize it or not, homesteading of the sea or “seasteading” is done all of the time whenever a vessel sails. By default, the vessel is claiming sole authority over the control of a certain physical space that just happens to be on water. Take note:

  1. That space is the area occupied by the vessel.

  2. That claim is constantly changing as the vessel sails.

In essence, homesteading the sea is not much of an issue. It just adds dimensions to a property claim.

9

I don’t believe that’s how most of Locke’s readers interpret him, and I don’t think it’s what he meant. If Locke had meant first use he would have said first use. He meant literally mixing something you own with something unowned, and he counted labor as something you own.

10

Yep. I understand the seasteading bit and the example you gave. The same would be for surfers on a wave. Whoever gets on the wave first (on the inside) has the claim to the wave… others can drop in, but then you get a conflict or breach.. etc.

I guess what I am trying to ask is: how can you rightfully defend or stop someone from altering, changing the conditions?

The only way I see that is possible is to gain the in question sea floor, land as property. Thus to homestead it - but by doing so, you directly defeat your origional goal, you have changed the conditions.

Thanks for the links etc everyone else, I will read up on those.

11

Very interesting. But this probably raises as many issues as it solves. After they have surfed for long enough, do now all the surfers that use that part of coast now own it together or something? They register a corporation and claim the break in the name of Surfers Limited?

12

Perhaps. Or perhaps the first surfer owns it and the others need his permission to surf there. If surfing rights are the property then the next question is just what exactly does the owner/surfer own. I assume you saw the discussions about relevant technical units above.

13

He lived in the 17th century. He couldn’t have conceived of non-material property.

14

The way I see it… you can “own” a wave, whilst it exists and you are on it, mixing your labour with it, or using it first… The wave eventually disappears though, and so does your ownership of it.

I guess - it would be impossible to own the waves because they are forever being created and destroyed by nature. (Obviously, unless you create them, like in a man made whirlpool, but that is largely off point)

I spouse there needs to be a distinction between the ocean bottom, the sand etc and the water, waves. The surfer never does anything with the bottom or sand, only the surface water. But the surface water is affected by the sand, and ocean floor…

The surfer doesn’t want to own the sand or ocean floor, he wants it to be left alone. But he can’t guarentee that unless he owns it. And he can’t own it, unless he destroys want he wants to save.

Or am I looking at this the wrong way, or being too predantic, pragmatic? shrugs

Thanks

15

I guess you can say the surfer might have easements from travelling certain routes in the sea often, so that if someone homesteaded/bought a particular piece of the ocean, they’d either have to buy the easement or let the surfer continue to use it. Full ownership though? Sounds unlikely, especially since courts might require greater changes (whatever the RTU is) to recognize full ownership.

16

Well, armies, air forces and navies do that all of the time. Just copy what they do.

That is not to say that it is easy to homestead the sea. The fact that it is a physically difficult feat to enforce such a ridiculous claim my suggest that whoever has the “rightful” claim is irrelevent.

??? Why should anybody except yourself care?

I do not mean that to be dismissive of your question. What I mean to do is to point you into thinking of the problem from a different perspective.

How you enforce a claim is your problem.

17

Well the first surfer probably can`t be tracked down now. And anyways even originaly the beach would probably on a good day attract more than one.

I suppose since they were first what exactly they own is the right to surf there and the right to not have their surfing interrupted. So they have the right to barr swimmers, boats, fish farms and folks who would dump sand on their break. So in practice it is pretty much the same as if they own the whole 3D space there.

If we accept that however consider this, lets say there is primitive tribe somewhere which worshipps a certain hill near them as a deity, albeit they never actually set foot on the hill (it`s not polite to walk over god). If you can homestead through surfing, why not homesteading through worshipp? Why not say they now own the hill in some way?

18

Right, and that’s an easement.

19

Yes, but they break the non aggression axiom and violate property rights though… I want to be in the morally right position.

It would be relatively easy to enforce sea steaded fisheries out in the ocean etc, with sensors etc. but I suspect you know this. I’m not sure what you are referring to as “physically difficult feat to enforce such a ridiculous claim”? The claim to the waves, or the claim to the sea floor, sand etc?

I’m not the only person who has an interest in keeping the natural waves that form, unchanged or altered by man by dredging of the sand, or pumping of it to different areas, or dumping objects, or building peers and jetty’s within the area that would ruin the break. There is probably about 30 million surfers worldwide now.

“Kirra”, a world famous, quality beach that had perfect waves for miles is now nothing.. because of dredging, removal of sand.

I appreciate the different perspective… but I am wondering about how you can possibly make a claim for the sea floor, sand etc so you can rightfully leave it as it is. So you have a proper claim. Not entirely interested in how to enforce it atm, that wld be a nice next step though.

20

I found this article!

Better Surfing Comes with Property Rights
by Bart Frazier, Posted November 1, 2007

Excerpt:

Coase and surfing

"In 1991, Ronald Coase won the Nobel Prize in economics “for his discovery and clarification of the significance of transaction costs and property rights for the institutional structure and functioning of the economy.” In one of his seminal works, The Problem of Social Cost, he determined that as long as property rights are well-defined and it is easy to transfer property from one person to another, an efficient distribution and use of that property will result no matter whom the property rights are initially granted to. As it relates to our resource problems, the Coase Theorem tells us that once we take the first step, actually defining the rights to a resource, the “tragedy of the commons” for that resource will disappear as long as a free market exists.

We can see the Coase Theorem at work today in the world of surfing where an interesting development in property rights has recently occurred — where a resource that has traditionally been unowned is currently undergoing a positive transformation.

The world of surfing has seen an explosion in the number of people who want to surf. In the early 20th century, the only people who surfed were native Hawaiians. As tourism became an integral part of Hawaii’s economy, tourists took surfing back to California. In 1959, it is estimated there were approximately 5,000 surfers worldwide. The popularity of the movie Gidget, which was released that same year, drastically changed the landscape. By 1963, there were two million surfers, most of them in California. Today, the worldwide surfing population is estimated to be between 17 and 23 million.

That is an explosion in demand that any corporate CEO would drool over. With the number of surfers growing at an exponential rate and a limited number of waves for them to share, crowding has become a problem. The crowding occurs because no one has a right to the waves, specifically the right to prevent others from using them. It is a first-come, first-served system. In the early days of the sport, this wasn’t much of a problem: very few people were jockeying for rides. Ten people could easily share waves at a good break. Now it is not uncommon to find 50 or more people fighting for the same wave.

Things are not quite the same in Fiji though. One of the premier surfing destinations in the world is Tavarua Island Resort, which owns not only the entire island of Tavarua but also the waves that hit the island. Its waves are so good that the professional surfing tour holds an annual competition there.

Because Tavarua Island Resort and the waves that break on its shores are private property, it can offer what almost every place in the world cannot — relative solitude in prime surf. The resort limits the number of people on the island on any given day to 24. That’s it. For your money you know for a fact that there will be a maximum of 23 other people out in the water with you, and most likely fewer. If you have the cash, $3,478 to be exact, you can rent the perfect waves for a week. Twenty years ago, surfers never dreamed that such a resort could have existed. And it never would have if property rights had not evolved to include waves.

Property rights have evolved in other areas to allow efficient transactions and eliminate the commons. Oyster beds in North Carolina have made a dramatic comeback since oystermen have been allowed to claim beds for their own. The right to own big game animals in Africa has led to an exploding ecotourism industry, bringing elephants back from the brink of extinction. Property rights in conservation itself have developed as landowners sell easements against future development on their property.

As long as private individuals or companies have ownership over any resource, it is in their interest to conserve it and protect its value. That is the direction that our domestic policy should strive for — as much property as possible in the hands of the private sector and as little as possible under the control of government bureaucrats."

This; http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/786278.html , with link to a few more.

So is that the solution… re-define property rights, or use the corse theorum? Thats an exception though really, is it not? If you are to redefinre property rights, how can you properly / legitimately give property rights to the right owners, whoever that is? [:S]