I have been tussling with the Libertarian solution to water rights i.e. groudwater rights. Suppose that there is a country like Australia and it has only one water table, how should the water property rights be allocated. With land, we can do a mixing of labour…but how do you do a mixing of labour with the ground water. Does the first person to sink a well own all the water rights…I don’t think so…but how do you divide it up in a libertarian way.
Secondly, how would we handle BioSecurity in a libertarian “state”. Who would be responsible for prohibiting the importation of dangerous pests etc which could damage the livelihood of others?
Property rights. If someone imports pests that cause damage, you have a claim against them. They are legally responsible. It would be in the interest of port authorities to regulate this themselves.
I don’t understand the issue with the water table. Doesn’t it rain in Australia? Isn’t it completely surrounded by ocean?
Groundwater rights would likely be treated in the same manner as air rights. However, whoever started pumping first would be entitled to the volume desired, the next person to pump couldn’t pump to an extant that would interfere with the prior, and so on , and so on.
Say a small farmer was using 1200 gallons a day (gpd) average then a mega farm tapped in next door and pumped 120000 gpd, this would be ok as long as the first small farmer could still average 1200 gpd.
All very well in theory…but how can you decide/prove that a particular pest came via a certain port/airline…impossible to prove…the theory is sound but the practice is unworkable in my opinion.
I don’t think that groundwater rights are the same as air rights. Air is practically limitless…groundwater may very well not be. Your soloution seems incorrect to me as it does not allow for the conservation of what may be a scarce resource. Undrer your scenario, the first person to sink a well should pump as much water as possible whether they need it or not.
If the groundwater is not replenished, how does the initial claimant work out who actually took his water when he can no longer pump 1200 gpd?
If there is a market for something (profit opportunity), solutions will be created to fill that demand.
If they can’t track imported goods under a free market, how do you suppose the state does it now? What are the differences? What can the state do, that individuals cannot?
By what authority, would party A, be able to force party B to not be able to do something? I mean by what moral authority. Obviously, we can just give party A a gun, like the government has, and it can order people around. But if we all dealt with each other without violence, how could party A restrict party B?
!. Not sure what you are getting at here. There is undoubtedly a market for moon rocks…but, currently, it is not a profitable one. There may well be market for finding out which port/airline/person caused the introduction ofa species…but the cost of proof may well be too great to be feasible or may just be unavailable. The government does not worry about blame attribution - as we would have to do - they just worry about stopping the importation of foreign pests (in all senses of the word )
The state can have security gaurds, rules, regulations etc that can interfere with your rights under the guise of the “greater good” of protecting the livlihoods of others or under the guise of some national defence of bio security which need not be a profitable or even economically viable. The government does not need to worry about the attribution of guilt and the determination of compensation. They just worry about putting the barriers in place.
That is the nub of my question…I am not sure that as libertarians we have a practical solution to some of these problems. Hopefully, in time, we will develop them…but at the moment I don’t see practical solutions to things like bio-security or public health issues or keeping nukes or dangerous chemicals in your house which might become a danger to your neighbours.
There would be. Because there are going to be losses and damages, so there will be a market to limit those costs.
Well, when cost exceeds benefit, that’s when you don’t pursue a course. That’s just basic economic rationing, in a world of scarce resources.
Sure, as I said, the government tramples on property rights, in order to impose order. Even if it is an economic loser, the government will reduce prosperity, to carry out a mandate.
So you’re saying that the government has the ability to use force.
We’re not meant to. The solutions are meant to evolve in the market. Being a libertarian, is about accepting the premise that violence is not the most efficient or moral way to achieve an end. It doesn’t promise utopia or market perfection.
But the lack of an answer, doesn’t mean the libertarianism cannot work. If we had all of the answers, prior to having a free market, then the state could stop using violence and implement those policies immediately. It is actually an argument for central planning, which we, as Austrians reject.
Do you believe the US government can stop a biosecurity threat? Do you believe they can keep nukes safe, when they leave nukes lying around on airport tarmacs? Do you believe they can stop dangerous chemicals from being in people’s homes?
They can’t even stop people from smoking pot. They can’t even win an 8 year war in Afghanistan, which has no organized military to speak of.
I think you are putting libertarianism in an awkward position, because you are saying it can’t work, when all it has to do as fail like the state, but without aggression, and it is already an improvement.
If you’re scared of all the fearmongering the state directs at us, no one will be able to sell you on anything, except trading your liberties for the illusion of security.
Just because there are losses and damages does not mean that we can pin point the source of those losses. Sometimes (though it galls me to admit), prevention may be better than blame attribution and compensation…I don’t see a libertarian way out of this impasse unfortunately. That does not mean that I am FOR goevernment and AGAINST libertarianism…it just means that we, as libertarians, have not come up with a solution to this problem…is there a libertarian solution…I don’t know. We should be able to work this out a priori without falling into the utopian fallacy that “it will be alright on the night because the market will take care of it”…there may be situations that the market cannot take care of…and so we need to find another solution in keeping with the no coercion principle…but how?
I don’t agree that the if we had all the answers the state would stop using violence - that is not the nature of the state.
Do I think the US government can stop bio-security threats? Yes, it can do so better than any solution you or I can come up with - is that justifiable - morally no - practically maybe…its like the one about using somebody else’s gun to kill a rampaging gun man without the owners permission.
They may not be able to stop keeping dangerous chemicals in people’s homes but there are laws against it which can be enforced if the situation comes to light.
Actually, I think you are the one putting libertarianism in an awkward position by not facing up to these problems and by putting libertarianism in the position of a religion in which you just must believe while ignoring the problems that arise. Libertarianism is not a religion it is a philosophy to live by and and as such needs to be able to face up to the hard questions. Utopianism such as “it will be alright on the night as the market will take care of it” is trampling on the work of those who went before and tried to outliine a better and more moral mode of organising collective life - one based on principles and logic. If there are problems that we cannot solve then we should say so and start working on a solution which is in keeping with our moral sentiment…if we cannot do so then we need to adjust something…what do we adjust is not a trite question…but it is not one that we can ehtically dodge.
It’s not a problem though. You claim the market cannot solve an externality, and then you want the state to solve the problem by making it an externality.
I don’t regard libertarianism as a religion, so please avoid posting strawman arguments.
I have a question for you. What is libertarianism?
The alternative to the market is violence…violence is always an option that can be used…you have to use it in self defence after all. The market does not mean the absence of violence…only the absence of the initiation of violence.
Re: the US government controlling bio-security…neither can you..so that leaves us nowhere …except avoiding the issue.
I have no problem with enforcing a private law that says somebody should not be storing dangerous chemicals/explosives in their house which may damage their neighbours…I just want to work our how we can tackle such a problem in a just way and in according with our principles.
It is a problem, and if you are just wishing away the problems and saying that the market (god) will take care of it when we have a market driven society (heaven) then you are using a faith based system and not a rational based system.
It does not matter what libertarianism is…it is just a label. Libertarians come in all sorts of guises. What is important is that where the theory is (or seems to me to be difficient ) we front up and try and work out a solution…or else say “Ok. our theory does not have all the answers” (that does not mean that it is wrong, only that it is not 100% right and is still a damn sight better than what we have now)…it is only by pressing on those parts of the theory which are problems and where it seems (to me) to fall down that we can make progress in our thinking.
We should not be afraid of saying that libertarianism does not have all the answers…if it had then it would be a religion. There must be lots of places where libertarianism does not have the answers…that does NOT mean that the current situation is better…though the current situation may tackle certain problems better (whatever that might mean) than our current libertarian approach. Here is your question…when can we morally break the principles which lie underneath libertarianism.
(Why is the spell checker on this forum so bad?..why is my spelling so bad )
Words, such as libertarianism, are not just labels. They are concepts. You need to carefully define the scope of your problem before you ask for a solution.
I think you’re being totally unfair. You are casting LS in the role of a master planner and demanding an optimal solution to a problem. And when LS argues that you need a market to figure out what is optimal, you bring up this faith based nonsense. Libertarianism is not a big bag of entrepreneurial solutions to technical problems. The market is. All libertarianism is, is a political philosophy. Its scope is limited to the question of how ppl ought to interact.
Libertarianism is both a label and a concept, that is why there are so many different versions of it.
I thought I had pretty well defined the scope of the problem…If I have not, then I am happy to be helped to “carefully” define it.
I don’t think I am being unfair (naturally), I just think that there are specific problems that need tackling…I am sure that they can be tackled within the scope of libertarian philosophy but nobody is giving me anything but generalities…and you cannot eat generalities, unless you are an economist who assumes a tin opener…the devil is in the detail…and in certain areas we lack the detail…and we do not seem to have the tools (yet) to tackle them…and maybe we do not even have the maturity to admit that there are problems…assuming away the awkward problems is not a solution…nor is saying “the market will take care of it”. How do we know the market will take care of it…if we can’t figure out a logic as to how the market will take care of it then the market may well not take care of it…we may be left with a bio-security disaster…as that may be only solution which ties in with the fundamental principles (I doubt it…but it could be so).
I demand nothing of LS other than honesty…either we can see a solution based on logic and the principles or we do not. If we do not see a solution then either there is no solution or we need to do some more thinking to get one…‘it will be alright on the night’ is not a solution …it is a wish.
Libertarianism is not a big bag of entrepreneurial solutions to technical problems but it is a big bag of entrepreneurial and novel solutions (compared to what we have now) to how people will and should react to the incentives presented to them whilst keeping coercion at bay (or to a minimum)…
The first problem is not unique. In this case property rights would be allocated according to use. Users of the water establish easement rights by virtue of it’s use and the first users become the owners. The late-comers whose use causes depletion are aggressors against the easement rights of the first users.
Biosecurity is no different from any other kind of hazard. Most of the problem is caused by public ownership of transportation. If roads and airports were privately owned, the private owners would set the conditions for entering their property. They would obviously not want people bringing potentially destructive pests onto their property and would prohibit them.
In the case of the water rights, supposing the water table is the size of Australia…according to your solution the first person to draw water has the rights to the whole underground water supply…how is that different to Columbas landing in America and claiming it all as he is the first to land. I can see that the answer in Columbas’s case is that he can only claim the land that he can homestead…and that seems very sensible to me…but that should also (to my way of thinking) apply to the water rights also…but how?
Sure the private owners would set coditions for entry …but as the ability to track down where a particular bio-hazard entered the country is difficult, they will be sub optimal in the seting of their conditions…well, sub optimal compared to the present arrangement…and hence is likely to create a worse outcome all around …so, there must be a better way to incentivise the private port owners/entry points to have entry conditions as stringent or even more stringent than the existing conditions…but how?
I don’t think that saying “God/The Market will provide” are good enough answers in these cases.
The first person to dig a well does not own the whole supply. He owns the well. As part of the ownership of the well he has easement rights one of which is the right to draw water at a certain rate. If the second comer comes and draws water in a manner which does not interfere with the easement right of the first, he also establishes an easement right. And so on. Eventually, a latecomer comes who will be the marginal user who depletes the resource at a rate slightly beyond the natural rate of replenishment. He is an aggressor because he is interfering with the use of the all the other wells by their owners. The solution is obvious once you consider that easement rights and property rights are two sides of the same coin.
@ the biohazard problem
I truly don’t understand what you see as being the problem. What do you mean by sub optimal? According to what metric? And incentivise port owners to do what exactly? And just whose supposed to do the incentivising?
Also, I think if you just leave ppl be, than God, the market, or whatever will just sort things out. Ppl can manage their own affairs.
Agreed that is a solution and in accordance with the principles. However, it does not seem to be the most efficient solution as it encourages the first user to use as much as possible and even waste a scarce resource. Also, it seems to go against the homesteading principle…sure you have mixed your labour with it when you have pumped it above ground…but can you really have any claim to the unpumped water?
@ Biohazard
Again, I guess, it is an efficiency problem The prima facie solution in accordance with the principle will lead to a solution which is not in the best interest of all as the incentive to have tight entry security is dependant on getting sued by those whose livelihoods you have damaged by allowing pests into the area. But because it is difficult, if not impossible, to trace the entry route of the pest, and hence to allocate blame and to extract compensation, the owners of the entry ports will produce a bio security defence which is less effective thant he current one.
Maybe these tow problems boil down to the same solution…how can we construct incentives which do not violate the principles but do not a) encourage the first user to waste water and b) ensure that the port owners have an effective bio defence policy.
Sure, people can manage their own affairs, but will they manage them in accordance with the principles of libertariansm of will they resort to violence. Violence is always an option…but, as theorist, can we construct laws/regulations/incentives that will achive the most sensible (and efficient) goals for all whilst not resorting to violence.
)