3 ms·
I don't think it does that at all. You have rights to the space above your property, you have severe limitations on your right to modify the make up of the mole
by zardo 11y ago
I don't think it does that at all. You have rights to the space above your property, you have severe limitations on your right to modify the make up of the molecules that make up the air.
Would private ownership provide some means to prevent poisoning that atmosphere?
See: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=99f0bd4d8deafa1761d3ba07dc389075&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40cfrv33_02.tpl#0 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=99f0bd4d8deafa1761d...
- ancap 11y agoYou are correct that the ownership of the air above and around your property is severely limited when compared to the ownership of say land, water or minerals. 19th century courts abandoned the concept that factory smoke was a trespass on someone's air and weakened the concept of property rights in regards to ownership of air, ushering in this modern day tragedy of the commons. Obviously had the courts made the opposite rule, the amount of air pollution we face today would be much smaller.