Self is required for occupancy.
On the so-called Lockean proviso:
http://www.hanshoppe.com/publications/econ-ethics-appx.pdf (p. 246)
Phantom, I’ve posted here a few links on Austrian approaches to environmental issues that might interest you:
So your assumption is that you own everything you occupy.
Do you own the trampoline you occupy that someone else has laboured to own?
The individual, like it or not, is separate from land. He may require land to perpetuate his life but that does not mean he is not separate from it.
Great… Except Locke is wrong.
Presumably I have been gifted it’s use by the owner.
If land represents a specific fixed location in space for economists, then there is no where I can exist without occupying land.
Ah! But according to you, if all land has been developed, you are entitled to stand on his trampoline! Then taking it to a new extreme you assume that you are entitled to stand on that trampoline if you so please regardless of his ownership of it, for his “exclusive use” violates your self-ownership due to your desire to access everything and anything that anyone else claims ownership over.
Like a good anti-human, however, you offer a nifty little tax for him to keep his stuff without your implied interference.
Then existence in reality is that which is taxed and you are contradicting yourself by claiming to be protecting existence and self-ownership you inherently violate it!
Even so, then your scarcity bullox is defeated. Space is ever expanding (big bang).
Now bring up “as good as” and I will bring up, good is what you get, deal.
Proudhon, Spooner, Tucker, George, Claire, Rothbard, ???, Konkin
My heroes (not much of a George fan though; mostly because of the land question)!
Karl Hess. Goldwater speechwriter to anarcho-syndicalist, left-libertarian.
By the way, Konkin grew up in Canada and his family was a member of the Social Credit Party.
Suppose you build a skyscraper blocking sunlight for a farm near you. Can the farmer can sue you?
Suppose you already had a skyscraper that blocks your neighbor’s sunlight, and your neighbor wants to build a farm. Can your neighbor sue?
Suppose an airplane flies over your farm and blocks your sunlight. Can you have the right to sue? What are the dimensions of your property?
Suppose you build a skyscraper on a mountain that is tall enough to block an airplane, is tall enough to break a satellite.
Suppose you dug a hole to China. Can the Chinese sue?
The dimensions of your property is vague.
You can sue carbon emittors, as long as you proof that carbon is reasonably violating your property rights. But almost all people are carbom emittors. People would stop buying gasoline cars then.
“Suppose you build a skyscraper blocking sunlight for a farm near you. Can the farmer can sue you? Suppose you already had a skyscraper that blocks your neighbor’s sunlight, and your neighbor wants to build a farm. Can your neighbor sue? Suppose an airplane flies over your farm and blocks your sunlight. Can you have the right to sue? What are the dimensions of your property? Suppose you build a skyscraper on a mountain that is tall enough to block an airplane, is tall enough to break a satellite. Suppose you dug a hole to China. Can the Chinese sue? The dimensions of your property is vague. You can sue carbon emittors, as long as you proof that carbon is reasonably violating your property rights. But almost all people are carbom emittors. People would stop buying gasoline cars then.”
This has been addressed by Murray Rothbard here,
Some of these links are kind of dumb
Why has the price system seemingly failed [when it comes to unrecyclable waste]? Is his intrinsic to capitalism, one of the “market failures” that socialist economists are always rattling on about? Not at all. The failure stems not from laissez faire, but from state prohibition. Specifically, the government has nationalized, or municipalized, the industry of solid waste management.
[In case it isn’t obvious, this article goes on to describe how privatized waste disposal would be cheaper, and create an economic incentive to use recyclable products, all at the same time. It uses the ridiculous fee of $5 to dispose of plastic as opposed to $0.10 for recyclable paper]
First off, most waste management is already privatized anyway. Secondly, since air and water are still deemed common goods, privatized waste management wouldn’t solve anything; in fact, it would create an incentive to find new and more secretive places to dump stuff by providing an economic incentive. The only way privatization would fix the waste problem would be if the entire world were a Geolibertopia with restrictions on renting land, so all the waste companies were duty-bound to return their landfills to the way they found them afterwards. That would make disposing of plastic quite expensive. But as it is, this would just wreck the WM-owned land.
About a year ago, a colleague and I began an investigation of air and water quality for a sample of countries worldwide. We gathered data on income, life expectancy, and property rights enforcement for 14 countries. Our results replicated previous work that showed a systematic relationship between improved environmental quality and incomes after a certain income threshold was passed. Our new finding was that where property-rights enforcement is stronger, environmental quality is better.
Obviously once people have a certain income level they can afford to protect their property. Duh! The role of government here is to protect the property of people who don’t have the time or money to defend themselves in court. Some people work for a living rather than posting on Internet forums.