This is why a free society is evil. (fwd)

[Jim Choate]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Ray Dillinger wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Jim Choate wrote:
> 
> <Lots of stuff, which I'm snipping...>
> 
> >> I have long felt that we could comfortably shrink government 
> >> if open markets were established to help settle such conflicts. 
> >
> >Open markets don't settle conflicts, they barter goods. 
> 
> And most conflicts are over goods, if you think about them 
> that way.

Which is irrelevant in this scenario since it isn't about goods and isn't
open to a 'market' solution.

> The tree is property, which encroaches into the 
> volume near a neighbor's house.  Conflict arises because it 
> was never spelled out in the first place who owned that 
> volume.  If it had been, the choices are simpler and less 
> ambiguous: get out of it, buy it, sell it, or charge rent 
> on it.

Really? Looks like more handwaving. How did those previous standards
arise? I thought anarchist political systems had a mechanism to resolve 
'property' conflicts? What are the sorts of 'standards' that anarchists
suggest for resolving this sort of conflict? How do they build, and what
are they, their litmus tests?

Be that as it may however, this still doesn't resolve it, even with a
priori standards. Standards aren't, and can't be, completely
comprehensive.

Let's assume we use the standard 'cutting the plane' definition used in
trespass cases. In other words, once you've been advised to 'stay off my
property' even waving your hand in the air above, but across the property
line, is considered trespass. However, this clearly can't extend without
bounds, otherwise the aircraft industry would be shut down trying to get
over-flight permission from the bezillion (well really less than 300M but
it's sufficient in this case) property owners.

Now, when the tree limb crosses the property line, it becomes the other
persons property. But does that give the person the right to chop the
entire tree down if the trunk is on the property line?

No, the point here is the 'maintenance of property' which isn't covered in
free market theory because we're not shopping around for something, we're
trying to keep some part of what we have (eg nice tree, undamaged roof).
And those sorts of responsibilities are not resolvable through market
forces because they're not a 'negotiable' aspect to the property (eg
feeding your pet).

After all, whose fault is it if the limb impacts the roof? The person who
owns the roof? The owner of the tree? If it's the owner of the tree, just
how far are my responsibilities to go with respect to maintenance of
your(!) property? Why does anarchic theory not recognize this aspect of
the philosophy? Why is this important facet ignored when 'property' is
defined?
 
> The factory is property, which encroaches into air quality. 

Which is a perfect example of why anarchic and libertarien theory fail. By
the time the 'market' even has knowledge of the problem the factory has
already done the damage (ala Love Canal or Thalidomide).

> Conflicts arise because it was never spelled out in the 
> first place who owned the right to what quality of air.

That's because there is NO fundamental way to do it. It is as impossible
(and for the same reasons I might add) to do as to describe a 'universal
logic verifyer'.

[ related stuff snipped ]

    ____________________________________________________________________

           Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a
           smaller group must first understand it.

                                           "Stranger Suns"
                                           George Zebrowski

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------