5 ms·

If water property rights were more explicit and the OP didn't gain property rights in the water as part of his/her house purchase, then the house's purchase pri

If water property rights were more explicit and the OP didn't gain property rights in the water as part of his/her house purchase, then the house's purchase price would have had to be much, much cheaper than it doubtless was.

petermcneeley 8y ago
Right but this change occurred during the industrial revolution and also is sanctioned by the court. So either the house was purchased pre industrial revolution (so part of a historical context) or more recently. If it was purchased more recently then OP did pay for the new version of the water rights not the old ones. Second OP seems to think that the courts would settle in his favor but the very court that would do this is also the court that has weakened the water rights down stream. My original comment is simply a recognition of the pattern in which Libertarians tend to naively see a future of property and civil suits as ending up with them in the favorable position. Have I addressed your response?
- rayiner 8y ago
  You’re missing the point, which is that courts were able to weaken rights to downstream water quality because they were not property rights. Someone could leave a box on my lawn, and I could sue and get them to take it off my lawn. It doesn’t matter if that someone is my neighbor, or Haliburton. Clear, well-defined property rights are enforceable. But when it comes to the environment, there are no property rights. Just loosey-goosey balancing of everyone’s needs to access the commons. And it leads to results exactly the opposite of what you conjecture: when it comes to water, courts and policymakers keep siding with farmers over bigger and more well funded industries/landowners. Here in Maryland, crabbing/farming has huge influence on environmental policy, despite making up a tiny fraction of the economy (just 2%).
  - petermcneeley 8y ago
    Yes but as you clearly stated the law was "strict" before that they could not impair water quality, yet over the course of time the courts changed that. I understand the notion of converting everything to private property and having property rights infringements as being the mechanism for enhanced stewardship. However in such a system all matters are then resolved in a civil court. Perhaps I dont understand how the court system works well enough but I would argue that there is a tendency for those who can afford good council to be victorious. Now given the historical context it sounds like you dont actually have a right to sue for water contamination. If you were suddenly granted this right it would constitute an unearned reward as the existing property doesnt contain those rights. So if this were to change I think it would make sense that you pay for this new right and thereby the price of food would decrease. Finally I would agree that it is "loosey-goosey" the way the commons is today. However this is because there is now no concept of the public good because the world has entered zero sum dynamics. Peter Thiel explains this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDkhfm6CYjE&feature=youtu.be&t=1450 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDkhfm6CYjE&feature=youtu.be...
    - mmirate 8y ago
      The metaphorical pie doesn't size itself by its own accord or by some nebulous, external, godlike forces. Oddly enough, it grows when we don't let ourselves be ruled by people who act competently on the (mistaken) belief that wealth is inherently zero-sum. Sean Malone explains this here: https://youtube.com/watch?v=iV18Xx5EkaE&t=5m19s https://youtube.com/watch?v=iV18Xx5EkaE&t=5m19s
      - petermcneeley 8y ago
        The pie grows as a result of economic surplus.

petermcneeley 8y ago

Right but this change occurred during the industrial revolution and also is sanctioned by the court. So either the house was purchased pre industrial revolution (so part of a historical context) or more recently. If it was purchased more recently then OP did pay for the new version of the water rights not the old ones. Second OP seems to think that the courts would settle in his favor but the very court that would do this is also the court that has weakened the water rights down stream. My original comment is simply a recognition of the pattern in which Libertarians tend to naively see a future of property and civil suits as ending up with them in the favorable position. Have I addressed your response?

rayiner 8y ago
You’re missing the point, which is that courts were able to weaken rights to downstream water quality because they were not property rights. Someone could leave a box on my lawn, and I could sue and get them to take it off my lawn. It doesn’t matter if that someone is my neighbor, or Haliburton. Clear, well-defined property rights are enforceable. But when it comes to the environment, there are no property rights. Just loosey-goosey balancing of everyone’s needs to access the commons. And it leads to results exactly the opposite of what you conjecture: when it comes to water, courts and policymakers keep siding with farmers over bigger and more well funded industries/landowners. Here in Maryland, crabbing/farming has huge influence on environmental policy, despite making up a tiny fraction of the economy (just 2%).
- petermcneeley 8y ago
  Yes but as you clearly stated the law was "strict" before that they could not impair water quality, yet over the course of time the courts changed that. I understand the notion of converting everything to private property and having property rights infringements as being the mechanism for enhanced stewardship. However in such a system all matters are then resolved in a civil court. Perhaps I dont understand how the court system works well enough but I would argue that there is a tendency for those who can afford good council to be victorious. Now given the historical context it sounds like you dont actually have a right to sue for water contamination. If you were suddenly granted this right it would constitute an unearned reward as the existing property doesnt contain those rights. So if this were to change I think it would make sense that you pay for this new right and thereby the price of food would decrease. Finally I would agree that it is "loosey-goosey" the way the commons is today. However this is because there is now no concept of the public good because the world has entered zero sum dynamics. Peter Thiel explains this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDkhfm6CYjE&feature=youtu.be&t=1450 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDkhfm6CYjE&feature=youtu.be...
  - mmirate 8y ago
    The metaphorical pie doesn't size itself by its own accord or by some nebulous, external, godlike forces. Oddly enough, it grows when we don't let ourselves be ruled by people who act competently on the (mistaken) belief that wealth is inherently zero-sum. Sean Malone explains this here: https://youtube.com/watch?v=iV18Xx5EkaE&t=5m19s https://youtube.com/watch?v=iV18Xx5EkaE&t=5m19s
    - petermcneeley 8y ago
      The pie grows as a result of economic surplus.