Homesteading the Sea

Economics Political Theory
21

Sorry, but that article falls short. I think the conclusions are right but the analysis is wrong. The author pretends to have demonstrated a re-definition of property rights to include ocean waves but in fact, he does nothing of the sort.

In the example of the resort, the property right is access to and from the island.

Then have an armed navy patrol the perimeter of your space. Problem solved.

Except, you have to pay for the army.

You have to pay them enough to make it worth their while to respect their contract with you and prevent them from becoming pirates. That is what I mean by it being a “physically difficult feat to enforce such a ridiculous claim” up above.

It sounds like you are asking for the impossible: you can not touch something without changing it to some degree. Either that or you are asking a question better answered by marine biologists and geologists.

22

This is the point I was trying to formulate in my mind. Worship requires a great deal of bowing, sacrificing, trips to the foot of the mountain, and so on. What about simple admiration? If I admire a tree or a body of water, then do I automatically own it? After all, I have mixed my mental labor with the body of water.

It seems like you have to do more than just mix your labor with a thing. You also have to lay claim to it, be first, and be capable of defending your claim. Assuming you are not first, you can engage in voluntary trade. The defense part is very important. If Machiavelli’s Prince walks up to your surfing area, then what are you going to do? You can claim that you were there first, but the Prince will just chop your head off and claim that only those that can defend their property are the true owners.

Laying claim to a 3D section of water, sand, and sea life is one thing. Being able to defend that claim is another.

Sidenote: In China there are bathrooms where a man stands outside and collects money from the people that use it. Most tourists do not know that in many cases this man does not actually own the bathroom.

23

Yeah, that article did fall short…

So hoping others can weigh in on this?

The 'What’s wrong with advertising on the moon?" blog.. got me thinking about this again.

24

I think the ideas of homesteading, and indeed property itself, will have to be reworked eventually.

25

Well, the practical answer is:

Find geographic area, settle geographic area, and get enough guns or political clout to defend geographic area incase of attack. This is all homesteading really is.

26

This sounds like something a freedom and humanity hating statist would say.

  • get guns
  • politicize
  • claim ownership
27

There’s a difference between recognizing it and justifying it, you know? I’m just pointing out that this, in reality, is what ownership means. There’s really not another measure for it that I can see.

The government doesn’t care how hard you worked for your plot of land, neither does any other group that wants what you have. They might care about the guns you have or the ability to get bigger guns to protect you, though.

28

That is called unchallenge possession, not homesteaded ownership. It’s from Roman law.

29

No. You are still dreadfully wrong if you think this is a worthwhile definition of ownership. Might makes right anyone?

Anyhow, I don’t know the mechanics of waves well, but it seems the surfers have a claim somehow. Having evidence that certain sand bars or whatever are necessary for continued waves should go a long way in court. I think it would only mean a right to have whatever formation exist at those places, not that they be made from a solid pile of sand or X fish species not be harvested there. Sorting out property rights in the oceans can be pretty complex.

30

This is how I’ve always viewed the issue: homesteading is a matter of putting some u**nused identifiable pattern of property towards a certain identifiable use.

In other words, if you first use a shipping lane, others can change the property/pattern so long as they don’t prevent your use of that property/pattern as a shipping lane. Others could also use it as a shipping lane, or they could fish on it, etc. They could NOT put a toll plaza on it.

Or let’s say you are the first to start fishing a certain area. Others could also fish the area, so long as they did not prevent you from similar fishing experiences. This means that other fishers cannot fish in a manner where the fish population is adversely affected. Fishing licenses are designed to create this exact effect. Fish kept must be a length that ensures they are mature and have probably mated. Additionally, there are limits on how many fish any one person is allowed to keep. Homesteading in my view would seem to create the same effect, only it could be enforced by anyone, rather than just the state.

If you use a certain geographical area as an observatory, it would be a property violation for someone to put a gigantic windmill next to it, which blocks the view of the stars. Similarly, it would be a property violation to put a coal plant, etc. close enough to it to dilute the view of the stars. Yet, someone COULD put a hotdog stand next to it.

So, to answer the initial question, if you were there surfing the waves, which are a pattern of tangible property, you have a property right that no one else disrupts this pattern of nature. People could dredg under the water, so long as this didn’t diminish the waves.

This creates some interesting anamolies, however. For instance, if I build a house in the middle of a forest, does this mean I own the forest, as it is being used to supply me with a nice view? I think that are reasonable claims and reasonable restraints on such.

Can airplanes fly over your home, disturbing your patternistic claim to peace-and-quiet, as well as changing your view of the sky? Surely, if such air lanes were established before your housing settlement. If vice versa, then no. Of course, what is a reasonable violation? Blocking out .0001% of the sky and causing +1 db of noise could be said to be consistent with natural phenomenon.

But there actually exists another mechanism to balancing such. Offenses would be measured in money terms. If minor violations only yeild $5 infractions, the damaged party would likely waive such. Or the offending party would license the damaged party’s property for this purpose, at a cost cheaper than taking it continuously to court. This is in line with Coase.

The most basic restriction is that there is no claim to homestead property for “commercial use”. This is basically claiming land/resources for no specific purpose other than to sell or rent it, which is really not use at all.

So to recap, my basic homesteading theory is that some pattern of or actual property must have identifying characteristics and it must be put to some identifiable usage. Two patterns of property and usage can occupy the same matter, so long as the new claim does not interfere with the previously claim.

31

Seems to be the only thing that most other people really find valid. Again, I’m not saying whether it’s right or wrong, it just is.

32

Well… Kind of, yeah.

A worthwhile definition? Well, define worthwhile. Is it worthwhile to define it as one thing when people really only recognize the other? Maybe it’s philosophically accurate, but it certainly isn’t practically relevant - at least I don’t think it is in this instance.

33

do they find it valid? or rather, do they find it formidable?

34

I some what think this aswell.. is there a book anywhere that goes into all the subtleties of homesteading / property ownership? LeFerve has one I think.. but not sure if it adequately addresses all these concerns in depth…