Property rights question for Minarchists

[brandon]

In the ideal an-cap/minarchist society where government owns close to nothing, would private property rights extend vertically? Do you own the area 10 feet above your property? What about 100 ft? What about 3000 ft?

Can a plane fly above your house without getting permission? Can a satellite orbit above your house without your permission? Can I fly a hot air balloon 25 feet above your house without your permission?

Is there an exact altitude that is considered a cutoff between one's property and area that can't be owned by anyone?

And if no one owns the sky, how would we resolve a dispute between two aerial vehicle pilots that want to occupy the same space at the same time?

[Dieseler]

In the last question. Are those planes armed with machine guns?
Whats a minarchist?
Never mind I'll look it up.

[brandon]

Bump

[MRoCkEd]

interesting q

[Conza88]

In the ideal an-cap/minarchist society where government owns close to nothing, would private property rights extend vertically? Do you own the area 10 feet above your property? What about 100 ft? What about 3000 ft?

Can a plane fly above your house without getting permission? Can a satellite orbit above your house without your permission? Can I fly a hot air balloon 25 feet above your house without your permission?

Is there an exact altitude that is considered a cutoff between one's property and area that can't be owned by anyone?

And if no one owns the sky, how would we resolve a dispute between two aerial vehicle pilots that want to occupy the same space at the same time?

Private property rights are based on the Lockean Homesteading principle. You own what you mix with your labour, inherit or get as a gift, etc.

You do not own the air above your property.


"Can a plane fly above your house without getting permission? Can a satellite orbit above your house without your permission? Can I fly a hot air balloon 25 feet above your house without your permission?"

Yes.


"Is there an exact altitude that is considered a cutoff between one's property and area that can't be owned by anyone?"

Where your property stops... so that'd be the roof of your house, lol.

In anticipating the more than likely follow up questions; - can then a plane fly like 10m above your house? :rolleyes:

Well, yes - but they will be liable for the damage caused... burst ear drums.. destroyed property, smashed objects, etc etc.


"And if no one owns the sky, how would we resolve a dispute between two aerial vehicle pilots that want to occupy the same space at the same time?"

Whoever gets there first. This is exactly like a life boat situation.

The Ethics of Liberty - Murray Rothbard... please read it. It's covered in there.

:)

[yongrel]

Airspace is most definitely property, but whose property it is I'm not sure. In an established minarchist society, I can envision a scenario where homeowners typically own the airspace up to 100ft above ground level, or thereabouts. Perhaps 50 ft. The airspace above that would belong to whoever else is interested in it.

If I were a housing developer, I would want to make my developments as attractive as possible, and I think buying the airspace above the house would be a cheap way to do that. "Come buy Shady Acres homes! Now with only clouds in the sky! 500 ft of airspace included with every home."

In a transition to minarchism, I haven't any real idea how airspace ownership would be determined. I can imagine the government returning 100 ft above the top of the highest point on the land or so to every landowner, and auctioning the rest off. That would work, I think.

[hypnagogue]

An altitude could be determined. That's nothing more than a technical problem.

As for the two pilots, that's a non-issue. There is so much sky to use, all they care about is not being in the same spot as another plane. This is the service which air traffic controllers provide; air space management.

[mport1]

I agree with Conza88's answer.

[brandon]

Thanks for the replies! I'm a little intoxicated right now, but I have a multi-quote reply coming in the morning.

Merry Christmas!

[Kludge]

Hmmm.... Isn't Earth a sphere....? 100 ft. above/below your land isn't the same in terms of width, I don't think. I'd say you own as much airspace/goundspace as you can use, with a "cone of ownership", starting at a point at the center of Earth, and expanding upward, using your surface land ownership as a measuring point. That gives something for the courts to use if someone was building ridiculously tall monorails above your house and profiting from it or something...

[satchelmcqueen]

Hmmm.... Isn't Earth a sphere....? 100 ft. above/below your land isn't the same in terms of width, I don't think. I'd say you own as much airspace/goundspace as you can use, with a "cone of ownership", starting at a point at the center of Earth, and expanding upward, using your surface land ownership as a measuring point. That gives something for the courts to use if someone was building ridiculously tall monorails above your house and profiting from it or something...

neat thought. but at the moment of ground level fron that single point in the center of the earth, your air space would start to over lap with your neighbors air space ever so stightly and getting out of bounds as you go higher. think about it.


i think i read somewhere that the us gov owns anything over 2000ft. something on the reason that if buildings ever got to that height, then to go any higher they would need permission from the gov.

[Kludge]

neat thought. but at the moment of ground level fron that single point in the center of the earth, your air space would start to over lap with your neighbors air space ever so stightly and getting out of bounds as you go higher. think about it.

Sounds like a good incentive to be reasonable in your vertical building. Only in extreme cases would a court case and surveyor be required.

[bill50]

neat thought. but at the moment of ground level fron that single point in the center of the earth, your air space would start to over lap with your neighbors air space ever so stightly and getting out of bounds as you go higher. think about it.





Uh...no it wouldn't. It may not seem like a cone above your property, but it actually is. Your property may just not extend upward enough to tell its a cone.

[TastyWheat]

I agree with Conza88's answer.
As do I. If a plane damages your property then it's illegal. If a plane flies to close and you find it annoying take him/her to court.

[satchelmcqueen]

Uh...no it wouldn't. It may not seem like a cone above your property, but it actually is. Your property may just not extend upward enough to tell its a cone.

yep you are right. i for some reason was thinking at a different point for some reason AFTER the center point of the earth. so from the center point of the earth upwards, no property lines would ever cross anywhere after breaking ground level into the air.

[asimplegirl]

what is minarchist exactly? Can you explain what it is all about, and the reasoning behind it?

[pdavis]

what is minarchist exactly? Can you explain what it is all about, and the reasoning behind it?

Minarchy: (min minimal; archy sovereign, ruler, chief)

A minarchist is someone who believes the state should have a minimal role in our lives (protection of life, liberty and property; protection against aggressive force)

[Kludge]

what is minarchist exactly? Can you explain what it is all about, and the reasoning behind it?

A minarchy is the idea of having the smallest (MINimum) government possible to secure basic rights. It's generally accepted that in a Minarchy, rights would only be secured by prosecuting rights violations. Most believe in modestly taxing, with emphasis on user fees, to fund a judicial system and law enforcement system, though some seek to privatize the systems and have government in charge only of lawmaking.

IMO, it's the best bang for the buck in terms of liberty vs. security.

[asimplegirl]

then, hells yes, i am one. :)

[satchelmcqueen]

what is minarchist exactly? Can you explain what it is all about, and the reasoning behind it?

midgets

[krazy kaju]

If you homestead land, it doesn't mean that you necessarily homesteaded all the land beneath your layer of earth or all the air above the earth. Homesteading is homesteading.

[LibertyEagle]

Private property rights are based on the Lockean Homesteading principle. You own what you mix with your labour, inherit or get as a gift, etc.

You do not own the air above your property.

I don't think this is right. I defer to someone who knows more about this than I, but I remember Ron Paul talking about the fact that pollution could be dealt with by property owners filing suit against those who were polluting their air or water.

[krazy kaju]

I don't think this is right. I defer to someone who knows more about this than I, but I remember Ron Paul talking about the fact that pollution could be dealt with by property owners filing suit against those who were polluting their air or water.

Yes, air or water you homesteaded. You can't say that all of the infinite space above and below your house are your property just like you can't say that all of the Earth is your property. You either have to homestead property or purchase it from someone who has homesteaded it. You don't simply own something you never had an impact on.

[LibertyEagle]

Yes, air or water you homesteaded. You can't say that all of the infinite space above and below your house are your property just like you can't say that all of the Earth is your property. You either have to homestead property or purchase it from someone who has homesteaded it. You don't simply own something you never had an impact on.

That sounds logical. How do you determine how much air or water you own? How do you "homestead" air and water, anyway?

[krazy kaju]

This really is very complicated. I would recommend you read Rothbard's For a New Liberty. Locke was the first who really developed homesteading. We all agree that if I pluck an apple from an unowned tree, then that apple is mine, if only because it passes into my possession. It couldn't be any more or less owned than if it were in my stomach. Likewise, unowned land comes into my possession when I cultivate it - for example, if I plant the seeds of the apple into the land and harvest that, etc. I'm literally mixing my labor with the earth, making it mine.

A similar principle can be established to water. If I build special nets and the like in an area of water, that area becomes mine. Water has historically been homesteaded by groups of fishermen who would then separate the seas in special sea-farming areas.

Air, however, is less defined. Personally, I don't believe it can be homesteaded in the absence of physical objects. So, for example, if I build a tower, all the air that used to be in place of that tower is now mine. However, I don't own any other air.

That said, when RP was speaking of pollution, properly defined property rights would allow you to receive damages when someone pollutes water or air and thus damages your property. For example, burning coal that produces soot would damage your property, making me liable, just as throwing toxic waste in the Mississippi would make me liable to the people downstream.

[SwooshOU]

Suppose you own a narrow strip of land that is really long. I own the land on both sides, so instead of driving around it I will build a bridge over your property. It would block out the sun (does that play into this?) and lots of cars might drive over it.

What's the philosophy on this example?

Thanks.