On Chimneys, dust, farms, and automobile Emmissions, and wells

[Fox_McCloud]

Ok, please don’t think that I’m a liberal/statist in disguise here–I’m libertarian to the core…that said, there’s a few things that I don’t fully grasp how they’d work in an anarcho-capitalist society.

First off, I’m aware that property rights reign supreme…and thus, there would be a sort of “Free market environmentalism” that would arise, that said, how would this work in this situation:

-a family that burns wood to stay warm because they own 5 acres of woods, but cannto afford propane, natural gas, heating oil or the extra heating bill.

-A farmer is plowing his fields–it’s quite dusty and windy, and your front windows and home get plastered in dust…couldn’t this technically be viewed as a private property rights violation and something you could sue for?

-Automobiles…obviously, the roads would be privatized, but auotmobile emissions don’t just fall right onto the road…they drift. Now, obviously, most people won’t care about this, but there will always be that one person who takes note of who passes by their road, writes down their license plate number/other identifying information and attemps to sue them in court for polluting their private property.

-Wells (this is mostly for those who live in the country)–ok, let’s say you have a well that taps into an area where water has been trapped, and your neight is also tapped into the same area (it’s a very large area)…who owns it? Would usage be given to one and not the other, divided by 50% or what? What prevents one from sucking it dry and hte other from not getting a drop?

Again, plaese, I am NO statist, I’m just trying to work these things out in my head.

[david_z]

@Fox McCloud

-a family that burns wood to stay warm because they own 5 acres of woods, but cannto afford propane, natural gas, heating oil or the extra heating bill.

I’m not sure that burning wood on such small scales could constitute an affront to anyone’s rights.

@Fox McCloud

-A farmer is plowing his fields–it’s quite dusty and windy, and your front windows and home get plastered in dust…couldn’t this technically be viewed as a private property rights violation and something you could sue for?

See Coase’s “The Problem of Social Cost”. Sure it could be viewed as a rights violation in some circumstances, but in others (e.g., the wind was always blowing and the farmer lived there before you built a house next door (and downwind) of his farm. In that case, and others like it, no, it’s not a violation.

@Fox McCloud

-Automobiles…obviously, the roads would be privatized, but auotmobile emissions don’t just fall right onto the road…they drift. Now, obviously, most people won’t care about this, but there will always be that one person who takes note of who passes by their road, writes down their license plate number/other identifying information and attemps to sue them in court for polluting their private property.

This is a touchy one, because the entire urban/suburban infrastructure, as well as our reliance on fossil-fuel burning vehicles, is a creation of the State. In order to sue someone, you’d have to (out of equity) sue everyone who injured you. Also, you’d probably have to establish that you’ve not estopped yourself from filing against them (e.g., do you now drive or have you ever driven a car of your own?) among other things - like, do you depend on these vehicles, the owners of which you’re suing, for material well-being? Probably, you do.

In any event, I think the State is the single greatest threat to the environment. I’m not sure how a free market would resolve some of these things, but I’m pretty confident that it would.

@Fox McCloud

-Wells (this is mostly for those who live in the country)–ok, let’s say you have a well that taps into an area where water has been trapped, and your neight is also tapped into the same area (it’s a very large area)…who owns it? Would usage be given to one and not the other, divided by 50% or what? What prevents one from sucking it dry and hte other from not getting a drop?

In many areas in the Western U.S. where water is scarce, they developed the legal doctrine of Prior Appropriation which is different than riparian rights, which prevail where water is more abundant.

[Bostwick]

@Fox McCloud

-Wells (this is mostly for those who live in the country)–ok, let’s say you have a well that taps into an area where water has been trapped, and your neight is also tapped into the same area (it’s a very large area)…who owns it? Would usage be given to one and not the other, divided by 50% or what? What prevents one from sucking it dry and hte other from not getting a drop?

Property rights exist to avoid the tragedy of the commons you describe.

This situation, like most, is resolved through homesteading. Nature is allotted in a first-come, first-served fashion. Once a person has converted wilderness into a farm he is the owner, a late comer can not dispossess him. This holds true for all nature, not just land; but is constrained by the non-aggression principle. Others are only prevented from using my property in a way that conflicts with my ownership, for example a radio frequency broadcast across my farm would not be trespassing.

The person who drills the first well has the strongest claim to the water table. Likely the water table is large enough that several wells could coexist, but the current users could forbid new wells if the supply is threatened.

While land can be divided into units of any size, water tables or oil fields exist as a single economic unit. Without the right to exclude others from drilling your oil field you lack the ability to economize the production of oil.