But it's wrong. As I recall, we had lawsuits based on the idea the radio waves were interfering with "my land." I wish I could find that article I read. > It

But it's wrong. As I recall, we had lawsuits based on the idea the radio waves were interfering with "my land." I wish I could find that article I read. > It is not a physical object That was another objection of mine. An EM wave is as physical as you and I. It's much more physical than, say, a copyright. > my land Yes, that's part of the libertarian world view. I live in Sweden, where "my land" has a different meaning. I have the right of public access to most land, and the joint responsibility to maintain it. The libertarian world view, deriving as it does from the British context of serfdom, has a different interpretation of exactly the same term. > you can buy it from the person who own that by paying his price Yes, the libertarian view is that all things can be resolved by a market. However, you haven't told me what that process might be, only expressed a belief that it can be solve. We have real-world equivalents based on observatories for visible radiation instead of radio. Consider the McDonald Observatory. There are laws in the 7 county area to prevent light from interfering with the observatory. Do you propose that the better solution would have been to start a outside lighting market, and have the observatory purchase the sky illumination rights, instead of passing a law? That doesn't make sense, since it only takes a few stubborn people to ruin the telescope, but it's the logical conclusion from the argument presented in this essay. The market for EM silence is far different than the market for