I, Ryan - I think you are correct in terms of what people would think is morally wrong, but my question was this (I should have specified): is the use of force against Burns and/or his metal disk justified? For those who hold the NAP, how does Burns’ sun-blocker fit into this? Perhaps I can offer somewhat of a solution:
It seems to me that Burns technically did not commit any act of aggression in blocking out the sun. As z1235 implied, previous use of the product of the sun does not mean that one has any claim of the sun or its future product. David Sherin, you miss that the users of these photons did not produce either the photons or the sun, and had no hand at all in their production. They simply fell from the sky, and I can’t see how you have a claim to the future photons just because you caught some other, similar, photons in the past.
But if Burns did not commit any aggression, what just recourse would be left to the people of Springfield (assuming they remain in the town)? To me this looks like it could be a case where competition and ostracism come into play. You’ll recall that Burns created the sun-blocker so that there would be a greater scarcity of light etc., which he could supply to the Springfieldians at a cost. Now, assuming that both Burns and the people of Springfield continue to act without aggression, it seems unlikely that the latter would simply play along with Burns’ plan, since they were so outraged at his actions. Rather, Burns’ terrible publicity would shift the consumer’s spending away from Burns and to other energy providers. In an environment with such a demand for light, Burns’ desired monopoly could not possibly come about (assuming no aggression), since competitors would be able to undercut him. Thus with awful publicity and new competitors, Burns would probably be better off not building the sun-blocker at all, since the clean name of his rivals would mean that they would have to offer less to the consumer in order to make the same profit as Burns (if indeed the latter could still do enough business to survive).
Now of course if Burns did use aggression to attain a monoply position it would be an entirely different issue, and the use of force against him would be justified.
How is this in any way a more ‘efficient’ means for the city (toward their ‘no tarp’ end) then summoning a posse of potentially affected dwellers and beating the tarp-builder into a pulp in some dark alley?
Because there are no rights violations when one builds a rotating pole into the air. I could be wrong… might it he more efficient for me to rally up a posse to beat you rather than debate you?
Seriously, which arbitrator – who would presumably want to continue doing business in same city – would judge such action to be aggressive versus merely defensive? Profit and efficiency incentives obviously point to this being the most likely outcome.
The “no true scottsman” fallacy is not an argument, nor a refutation of one. It certainly gets used on this site a lot, like it is. But it’s not.
It’s a bad argument anyway. If you went to a private court and it ruled in the townsfolk’s favor, who are you to say that Mr Burns was the defensive one? I see not how his question was “unlibertarian” at all.
He only cares about efficiency, he gives not a fig for peoples rights. He is unmoved by questions of justifiabilty and legality. This is me just recognizing him. His idea of efficiency is no doubt divorced from Austrian notions of subjective value, and the efficiency incentivising of the market process under minimal rights violation. He signals an objective neo- classical mixed with common sense thymological view of efficiency I merely recognise the gap in our perspectives that will keep agreement between us at bay. No true Scotsman has nothing to do with it
No, no this is a good grasp of a homesteading principle. If you think you can profit socially off of something that will destroy millions upon millions of people due to the protection of some law, you’re simply delusional or too stupid to survive. You have to be acting within the scope and context that society will allow to in order to achieve a profit or exploit a resource, otherwise the land is not being used correctly and your own judgements failed you. Most if not all people simply don’t have nor ever will have the power to “blot out the sun” in a profitable manner.
“David Sherin, you miss that the users of these photons did not produce either the photons or the sun, and had no hand at all in their production. They simply fell from the sky, and I can’t see how you have a claim to the future photons just because you caught some other, similar, photons in the past.”
They don’t need to create the photons to make use of them (an oil company doesn’t create the oil it drills for). The question comes down to who has a more legitimate use of the photons: someone who has been making use of them, or someone who comes along and tries to prevent other people, who have been making use of them, from using them? Essentially what you’re homesteading is a relatively unobstructed view of the sun over a certain area of land. If you’re a farmer requiring 40 acres and you legitimately homestead that land, anyone who attempts to block the sun over your land is infringing on your rights.
Quite the contrary. I was moved enough by justifiability and legality to take the case to a local arbitrator. Was my description of everyone’s incentives (thus likely actions) in this scenario wrong? Finally, which is more Austrian: to let the market reflect the subjective valuations (and incentives) of its participants or to let Walter Block ‘objectively’ determine ‘good’ and ‘evil’?
“They don’t need to create the photons to make use of them (an oil company doesn’t create the oil it drills for).”
I should have said production and/or extraction etc. In any case it must have been clear to you that the sun does not need human activity in order to shine upon earth (not so for oil extraction etc.).
“The question comes down to who has a more legitimate use of the photons: someone who has been making use of them, or someone who comes along and tries to prevent other people, who have been making use of them, from using them? Essentially what you’re homesteading is a relatively unobstructed view of the sun over a certain area of land. If you’re a farmer requiring 40 acres and you legitimately homestead that land, anyone who attempts to block the sun over your land is infringing on your rights.”
Wait, so which is it:
a) Mr. Simpson has made use of certain photons and has therefore homesteaded those particular photons and no others.
b) Mr. Simpson has made use of certain photons and has therefore homesteaded ALL photons which come from the same origin (i.e. above his property on the ground).
c) Mr. Simpson has looked at the sun, and has therefore homesteaded that particular view of the sun.
If any of these is correct, explain to me how the object in question is homesteaded.
“I would suggest Chapter 6 of Boundaries of Order for questions like this.”
What particular part of that chapter? I read it but didn’t find an answer.
I’m pretty sure a view per se isn’t something that can be homesteaded. An unobstructed view of the sun however is something that can be used as a factor of production, so it isn’t the view for the sake of a view that you care about. If the barn cast a shadow big enough to affect crops you had planted, then it would be illegitimate.
“I should have said production and/or extraction etc. In any case it must have been clear to you that the sun does not need human activity in order to shine upon earth (not so for oil extraction etc.).”
It depends how you define extraction. The only way to make use of those photons in the case of the farmer is to plant crops. Crops planted by the farmer taking in light from the air are “extracting” (and in the same step, the light gets incorporated into the farmer’s production process). Most things we make use of in nature are given to us and we have to transform them into something more useful to us. But these things that exist in nature don’t require human activity to exist. And all these things from nature require some form of human activity to be homesteaded.
"Wait, so which is it:
a) Mr. Simpson has made use of certain photons and has therefore homesteaded those particular photons and no others.
b) Mr. Simpson has made use of certain photons and has therefore homesteaded ALL photons which come from the same origin (i.e. above his property on the ground).
c) Mr. Simpson has looked at the sun, and has therefore homesteaded that particular view of the sun.
If any of these is correct, explain to me how the object in question is homesteaded."
I’m not familiar with the Simpson’s episode so I can’t really tell how the townspeople may or may not have homesteaded a right to an unobstructed sky. But as a disclaimer, I can’t give you an answer for every little possible scenario that might exist. I’m just throwing in my 2 cents.
“The only way to make use of those photons in the case of the farmer is to plant crops.”
What about sunbathing?
But anyway: Imagine it was raining donuts and you sat on the ground and caught them as they fell from the sky (the origin is unknown). Now let’s say someone taller than you came along and held a basket above you, thereby catching the newly falling donuts. You have the donuts you caught before, and he has the donuts he caught after placing his basket there. Do you have a rightful claim on his donuts purely because you caught the donuts that fell before them?
“I’m not familiar with the Simpson’s episode”
I was just using the name as an example since you seemed to be switching between arguments and I wanted to know which one you thought was the correct one.
What about a guy that invents a gigantic vacuum cleaner to suck all of the air out of the earth’s atmosphere? Have we all homesteaded oxygen or would he be perfectly within his rights to do so?