Property rights on Water : Somalian Pirate's Edition

I read this on NYT article on Somali pirates.

The piracy industry started about 10 to 15 years ago, Somali officials said, as a response to illegal fishing. Somalia’s central government imploded in 1991, casting the country into chaos. With no patrols along the shoreline, Somalia’s tuna-rich waters were soon plundered by commercial fishing fleets from around the world. Somali fishermen armed themselves and turned into vigilantes by confronting illegal fishing boats and demanding that they pay a tax.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/world/africa/01pirates.html?ref=world

My question is, are property rights on water being established and perhaps (will) be recoginzed by the States?

I mean consider this, there is no clear and easy way for private individuals without the formation as a State can establishe their property rights on water. For example even if you were say the State of India who decides that you are going to charge everyone from using any territory of Arab Sea, Bay of Bengal, and Indian Ocean(uptil their range), you will have to flex your muscles into first making it clear that you have the power to keep people off your property. Only then you will be able to have other people acknowledge your property rights on it.

But if you actively attacked say an American ship because it came on your waters without your permission you will be waging a war between the two states.

Private individuals on the other hand do not face this kind of problem. What is anyone going to do at max, going to bomb Somalia? America is not getting involved in that shit at least anymore(black hawk down).

So lets say if Somalian pirates are able to wand everyone off the sea through hijacking of ships, soon nobody will be using those waters, so some Somalian pirates will be forced to allow ships to pass through without any incidents for say some Fees.

Who will be collecting that fees? Well just like in Somalia mainland in order to move from one city to another you have to pay a fee to every landlord you pass through(either that or be very very heavily armed). And no landlord is able to grow too big because then he is bombed the shit out by UN(like what happened with Islamic Courts Union). So the strongest fish in the water will be charging that fee, but this strongest people cannot be a single group of people because other wise the statist forces will bomb their headquarters.

So it has to be a bunch of people with their power not big enough to make an airstrike economical and strong enough to afford property rights on water.

Soon if more than alternate routes are developed to cross through that region, there will be a competition among the Waterlords to provide other services or cheap services.

For example fishing licenses will be given to commercial fisheries. Maybe even more sophesticated technology be developed for their use.

It all depends upon what unfolds in near future. Indian navy is currently the biggest threat to them since no other state has show any active interest in fighting them.

Either they will upgrade their ships into sophesticated modern fighters or they will retreat back into mainland Somalia.

prashantpawar:

 What is anyone going to do at max, going to bomb Somalia? America is not getting involved in that shit at least anymore(black hawk down).

This isn't true. The United States has already launched airstrikes against targets they don't like this year in Somalia. Calling them "Al-Qaeda linked" forces. Which is of course a pack of lies.

That is of course a lie.

Though they are Muslims and many of them are sympathetic to Saudi Arabia:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSLL19551020081121?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Not all Somalians are sympathetic to Al Queda or Islamic terrorism.

Hell Somalian Pirates refuse to even take the weapons they seized from the ship into Somalia or sell it, they say that Somalia does not need more weapons.

Worldwide International Piracy is what is going to force govts to acknowledge property rights on water.

prashantpawar:

Worldwide International Piracy is what is going to force govts to acknowledge property rights on water.

Fresh exertions by the "international community" under the banner of law enforcement are far more likely to result in a reduction to private property rights.

prashantpawar:

So lets say if Somalian pirates are able to wand everyone off the sea through hijacking of ships, soon nobody will be using those waters, so some Somalian pirates will be forced to allow ships to pass through without any incidents for say some Fees.

 Thats renting seeking, and unless you can establishment prior ownership its nothing more than piracy.

That your proposed business model is built around charging others to fish, instead of fishing it yourself unharassed, puts up a red flag.

Thats renting seeking, and unless you can establishment prior ownership its nothing more than piracy.

I am not justifying the acts of piracy on the absolute Libertarian scale. But consider this, without a govt the market is trying to establish property rights over water.

The waters are unclaimed part of nature right now. But unfortunately for that water to be homestead, it needs to be acknowledged that once the water is homesteaded other entites will acknowledge the ownership.

Since govts won't acknowledge the ownership since last 200-300 years we haven't had a single entity claiming ownership of the waters.

Finally the Market is making its way to property rights over water through piracy. There is profit somewhere, but since nobody is going to pay for it voluntarily, its going to start through physical coercion, but it should soon move towards voluntary market behavior.

 

prashantpawar:

The waters are unclaimed part of nature right now.

What of the current fishers?

It may not be exclusive property but its definately in use.

prashantpawar:

I mean consider this, there is no clear and easy way for private individuals without the formation as a State can establishe their property rights on water. For example even if you were say the State of India who decides that you are going to charge everyone from using any territory of Arab Sea, Bay of Bengal, and Indian Ocean(uptil their range), you will have to flex your muscles into first making it clear that you have the power to keep people off your property. Only then you will be able to have other people acknowledge your property rights on it.

But if you actively attacked say an American ship because it came on your waters without your permission you will be waging a war between the two states.

I do not think that is true. A state can by international law proclaim an exclusive economic zone that stretches 200 nautical miles into the sea from their landmass. Many states have proclaimed such zones and do not have great difficulty maintaining them. The bigger problem is that pressure from a powerful state can often lead to a less powerful state not declaring the zone although on paper they have the right to.

What the Somali fishermen/vigillantes attempted to collect may have been called a "tax" (or maybe it was only called that by the NYT), but in practice it was a fishing permit.Thus we could say they only claimed ownership over the fish and not over the water. I do not think they attempted to charge cargo ships just for passing through.

It's possible to start your own sea society. You link ships/boats together, or a platform structure, then the society operates and hopefully you can defend against external threats via boats and planes etc

Libertine Joseph:

It's possible to start your own sea society. You link ships/boats together, or a platform structure, then the society operates and hopefully you can defend against external threats via boats and planes etc

But how do you make a living?

Stranger:

Libertine Joseph:

It's possible to start your own sea society. You link ships/boats together, or a platform structure, then the society operates and hopefully you can defend against external threats via boats and planes etc

But how do you make a living?

fishing lol[