Political Theory

Re: Aquifer rights

dude6935 — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:21:08 GMT

You didn't address anything in the second half of my post including the second paragraph WRT defining homesteading and my critique of your proposed homesteading alternative.

Here is an even more rigorous definition of homesteading:

Homesteading is the process by which unowned particle(s) become owned. This occurs when a rational being asserts its control over a particle or group of particles by moving them with non-zero magnitude in three subsequent orthogonal planes with respect to its original state (ie stationary, linear motion, orbiting motion).

More simply restated, if you move an unowned particle (or group of particles) in three dimensions, you own it.

it can be appropriated but not by "homesteading it by taking a drink" which is really homesteading a mouthful (or less) and claiming the rest. My position is that your "ownership" is unlawful. I dont recognize it.

Moving the bottle (and the water) homesteads it. It does not matter if you drink from it or not.

How do you propose that the bottle become owned? You apparently gave up defending your alternative once its flaws were pointed out. Do you have a second alternative or would you like to defend your first?

can you quote me describing that? I dont think you can.

Here you said:

I can tell you right now that if our positions were reversed I would not recognize your claim to the entire bottle of water, and neither would I attempt to claim all the water.

So, do you deny "that each member has a right to use the property or a portion of it"?
And if each person has a right to use some of the water, do they have a right to prevent another person from drinking all the water?

That is the difference between communal property and unowned property. Anyone can use unowned property and can drink the bottle dry. But communal property can be rationed among the group. That is what you propose.

then any tangible contact can be considered homesteading. Lol ok as long as you are consistent I guess

Not ANY tangible contact. You are working backwards. I was proving that homesteading is a product of labor not that labor or product is necessarily homesteading.

Thats an answer because you are creating a false dichotomy. Things can be in dispute, or ownership can be in contest. ownership could be uncontested physically, but not recognized. Crazy world huh

Then your 3rd alternative to either homesteading (ownership and trade) OR non-ownership (a tragedy of the commons) is a property dispute. Great... Oh wait, there really is a third option that I didn't see earlier. It is communal ownership! (that is different from non-ownership because the group can ration)

Since you reject both individual ownership, non-ownership, and -supposedly- communal ownership, what do you support?

thats not very rigorous. I suppose as long as I talk to you, then I will just call whatever appropriation (of unowned property) process I use in any scenario "homesteading" and it will be kosher. Good day.

As long as it involves moving something unowned to make it owned, then OK.

Re: Aquifer rights

Malachi — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 23:49:40 GMT

Exactly. You refuse to say that a thing is either: A. owned by a given person. B. unowned and free to be approaprated. The only remaining option is that the thing is unowned and cannot be approated by an individual.

it can be appropriated but not by "homesteading it by taking a drink" which is really homesteading a mouthful (or less) and claiming the rest. My position is that your "ownership" is unlawful. I dont recognize it.

That is exactly what you describe.

can you quote me describing that? I dont think you can.

Sure it can. What one views as product is wholly subjective.

then any tangible contact can be considered homesteading. Lol ok as long as you are consistent I guess

Non-answer to: "Either things are owned or unowned. What is the third option?"

Thats an answer because you are creating a false dichotomy. Things can be in dispute, or ownership can be in contest. ownership could be uncontested physically, but not recognized. Crazy world huh

Homesteading is the process by which unowned "land" can become owned.

thats not very rigorous. I suppose as long as I talk to you, then I will just call whatever appropriation (of unowned property) process I use in any scenario "homesteading" and it will be kosher. Good day.

Re: Aquifer rights

dude6935 — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:59:04 GMT

its a position statement, informing you as to a specific claim I would not recognize. Where in the referenced quote did I assert communal ownership?

Exactly. You refuse to say that a thing is either:

A. owned by a given person.

B. unowned and free to be approaprated.

The only remaining option is that the thing is unowned and cannot be approated by an individual.

Here is the definition of communal ownership:

the ownership of land or other property by a community so that each member has a right to use the property or a portion of it

That is exactly what you describe.

Labor doesnt always and necessarily create product.

Sure it can. What one views as product is wholly subjective.

ownership is a social relation. Its an intersubjective agreement, not an objective state of affairs. People dont always agree.

Non-answer to: "Either things are owned or unowned. What is the third option?"

Its not relevant to ownership because you dont think its relevant. Do you see how ownership is a social relation now?

I see that there can be disagreement. So what? Truth is independent of perception or unanimity.

I guess you can explain to me how the ability to bring a tower to the ground isnt authoritative or dominating influence over the tower, but putting water in a glass is authoritative or dominating influence over the water.

I'm not going to repeat myself. (edit: actually I did end up repeating myself further below...)

I understand that to be your opinion, but you havent even articulated a rigorous definition of homesteading, let alone established why I should adopt your version.

Ok, I thought I did define homesteading. Maybe I didn't...

Homesteading is the process by which unowned "land" can become owned.

I was just directed to this today. It seems that Spooner and I independently arrived at the same general conception of property and ownership. Here he writes.

All the wealth, that has before been described - that is, all the things, intellectual, moral, emotional, or material, that can contribute to, or constitute, the happiness or well-being of man; and that can be possessed by one man, and not at the same the by another, is right fully a subject of property- that is, of individual ownership, control, dominion, use, and enjoyment.

The air, that a man inhales, is his, while it is inhaled. When he has exhaled it, it is no longer his. The air that he may inclose in a bottle, or in his dwelling, is his, while it is so inclosed. When he has discharged it, it is no longer his. The sun-light, that falls upon a man, or upon his land, or that comes [*18] into his dwelling, is his; and no other man has a right to forbid his enjoyment of it, or compel him to pay for it.

So to briefly restate: Any thing that a man exerts his original authoritative or dominating influence over is his. If you cannot make a thing bend to your dominating whims (plural for a reason), you don't control or own it. I have no doubt that you or I can dominate a glass of water. But I have serious doubts that either of us have the ability to dominate a water tower without major tools at hand. Now Spooner also speaks of abandonment of exhaled air. It is fairly easy to see that exhaled air is abandoned. What about a house that you leave for a month to take a vacation? Now there is a problem I don't fully understand the answer to.

And you should adopt the best answer to the problem of scarcity. That is private ownership, by the definitions and processes I propose.

I would probably enter a dialogue with the other person about the water instead of trying to drink it first. Thats because I recognize that property rights are about avoiding conflicts over scarce resources.

You can do that. A contract supersedes the question of original ownership so long as one of the parties to the contract owns the thing(s) in question. This would be a problem if mere claims constituted ownership, because a man in China could claim the bottle too, from across the globe. Or a man who owes you money could lay claim from a distance. Now there are many parties to the negotiations, one of whom would like to see you die of thirst. Absurd huh...

You can't logically negotiate ownership over a thing that neither of you own. That is nonsense.

Re: Aquifer rights

Malachi — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:04:01 GMT

Ok, then what is the following quote, if not communal ownership of a bottle of water?

its a position statement, informing you as to a specific claim I would not recognize. Where in the referenced quote did I assert communal ownership?

I already have, but I can elaborate. He appropriated the water by homesteading it. Homesteading requires labor, and labor creates product.

it seems like you think this is a word game of sorts. Products are produced, yet the water was already there. The act of homesteading you reference isnt production, its consumption. Labor doesnt always and necessarily create product. Surely you can see this.

Either things are owned or unowned. What is the third option?

ownership is a social relation. Its an intersubjective agreement, not an objective state of affairs. People dont always agree.

I agree claims are useful in that they help people avoid planning on homesteading the same things. I agree that you claim the tower, but that isn't relevant to its ownership.

you think its irrelevant to my ownership of the tower that I control it by controlling access and that I claimed the whole tower since I can only paint part of it at a time. That seems a lot like you declining to recognize my homesteading. Its not relevant to ownership because you dont think its relevant. Do you see how ownership is a social relation now?

As I believe I have said already, you homestead matter at the particle level. If you have not exhibited control over a given molecule, you don't own it.

I guess you can explain to me how the ability to bring a tower to the ground isnt authoritative or dominating influence over the tower, but putting water in a glass is authoritative or dominating influence over the water.

Also (to be specific) if the desires of A and B are in conflict, the one who homesteads something has the right to do whatever he wants with his property, short of aggression.

I understand that to be your opinion, but you havent even articulated a rigorous definition of homesteading, let alone established why I should adopt your version.

If desires conflict, homesteading resolves the conflict. What alternative (superior) method do you propose?

a less dogmatic approach. In the desert island scenario with the bottle, I would probably enter a dialogue with the other person about the water instead of trying to drink it first. Thats because I recognize that property rights are about avoiding conflicts over scarce resources.

Re: Aquifer rights

dude6935 — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 18:52:47 GMT

ok, no I am not. I am asserting that homesteading isnt the "best" solution for all cases of previously unowned property. Nowhere did I say that so-and-so has a right to whatever.

Ok, then what is the following quote, if not communal ownership of a bottle of water?

I can tell you right now that if our positions were reversed I would not recognize your claim to the entire bottle of water, and neither would I attempt to claim all the water.

please explain to me how the water is a "product" of his labor.

I already have, but I can elaborate. He appropriated the water by homesteading it. Homesteading requires labor, and labor creates product.

why would I want you to labor when youre just going to sweat and drink my water?

I don't know your subjective values... All I can do is disprove your argument that trade is impossible in this scenario.

We live in a world with more than two options.

Either things are owned or unowned. What is the third option?

we live in a world where sometimes, there arent third party arbitrators. Are you implying that homestead principle falls apart without access to the services of an arbitrator?

No. It is fine to use such an experiments to examine a theory's consistency, but hypothetical people won't necessarily live by any legal theory in a vacuum. So we must assume they won't break the "rules", or the experiment is pointless.

well, we disagree on the definition of "control." so right now I am wondering how you define "control" and how thats supposed to be universal when it cant even survive a simple thought experiment.

1. To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct. Would you say lowering an object without the ability to raise it or move it laterally is "to exercise authoritative or dominating influence over" that object?

your quote from block isnt applicable to the situation, I pasted the relevant snippet above. I claim the tower. In practice, claims are a real part of homesteading because its impossible to labor over some things instantaneously.

I agree claims are useful in that they help people avoid planning on homesteading the same things. I agree that you claim the tower, but that isn't relevant to its ownership. A claim isn't binding in any way. You exhibit control over the fence itself (since you built it and placed it where you wanted it), not the matter inside its boundaries (which you have not placed according to your desires or controlled in any other way).

As I believe I have said already, you homestead matter at the particle level. If you have not exhibited control over a given molecule, you don't own it. This has interesting implications to the tower experiment. If you can both drain the tower (of its previously unowned contents) and refill it, you exhibit control over the tower's contents, but not the vessel itself. That does not mean that I can rip a panel off the side of the tower (spilling its contents), because that would constitute interference with your water. Your property is then protected by the NAP. /rant

if you like living in a world where I can homestead water that you have put a glass around because you intend to drink it, then fine. [...]

Nonsense. If I pour a volume of water into a vessel, I control it, I own it. Further, I can throw the glass and the water wherever I want.

Thats because most people wouldnt want fellow shipwreck survivors to poison the water supply even though they didnt get around to mixing their urine with the water in the cistern. You appear to be an exception, and if I ever end up in a lifeboat with you I am spitting on all the survival rations, so I can trade them to you for your propulsion services.

Funny, but mostly irrelevant to anything I have said. One cannot simply mix an owned fluid with an unowned fluid to take ownership of the whole volume. You would have already exhibited control over the urine/poison but you have not yet exhibited control over over the unowned water.

Also (to be specific) if the desires of A and B are in conflict, the one who homesteads something has the right to do whatever he wants with his property, short of aggression.

indeed. Is this truism supposed to be some sort of justification?

I suppose, see the above. If desires conflict, homesteading resolves the conflict. What alternative (superior) method do you propose?

Re: Aquifer rights

Malachi — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 23:55:55 GMT

You are advocating that person B has a communal property right to water discovered by person A.

ok, no I am not. I am asserting that homesteading isnt the "best" solution for all cases of previously unowned property. Nowhere did I say that so-and-so has a right to whatever.

That is nothing other than a rejection of A's private property rights to the product of his labor (the appropriation of a bottle of previously unowned water).

please explain to me how the water is a "product" of his labor.

That is utterly false. We can trade labor. We can trade fish or any other scarce thing of value within our island universe. By rejecting private property, you destroy the benefits of trade.

why would I want you to labor when youre just going to sweat and drink my water? I can sit in the shade, drink water, and fish while you die of thirst. also please stop saying that I reject private property, because its not true.

Simple, you have the right to trade some (or all) of the water for the things you desire more than water and the other party has the same right. The alternative is a tragedy of the commons.

We live in a world with more than two options.

Also, this thought experiment is flawed. There are no arbitrators. We must assume some third party enforcement, or the situation reverts to pure game theory, devoid of any greater economic insight.

we live in a world where sometimes, there arent third party arbitrators. Are you implying that homestead principle falls apart without access to the services of an arbitrator?

You said you can drop the tank 6 inches. Can you raise it? Can you move it laterally? If you were flying an airplane and you can make it dive, but you cannot make it climb or turn, is it under your control? No, it isn't.

well, we disagree on the definition of "control." so right now I am wondering how you define "control" and how thats supposed to be universal when it cant even survive a simple thought experiment.

surrounding property which he does not own, nor claim.

your quote from block isnt applicable to the situation, I pasted the relevant snippet above. I claim the tower. In practice, claims are a real part of homesteading because its impossible to labor over some things instantaneously.

What right does person X have to say person Y can't make unowned water into insecticide (or use it to fulfill his desires in any other way)?

if you like living in a world where I can homestead water that you have put a glass around because you intend to drink it, then fine. But dont try to tell me you control the water in the glass when all you did is surround it with glass and move it around a bit, since you havent mixed your labor with it and you cant throw it in the air and then return it to the glass.

Again, you totally reject private property in favor of communal property.

this discussion would be a lot more productive if you would pay attention.

You merely imply that something is wrong with Y choosing to make insecticide with scarce water, but you don't explain how that is bad.

Thats because most people wouldnt want fellow shipwreck survivors to poison the water supply even though they didnt get around to mixing their urine with the water in the cistern. You appear to be an exception, and if I ever end up in a lifeboat with you I am spitting on all the survival rations, so I can trade them to you for your propulsion services.

Y would not make insecticide if it did not fulfill his desires more than all other alternatives.

indeed. Is this truism supposed to be some sort of justification?

Re: Aquifer rights

dude6935 — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 06:52:20 GMT

"how could you possibly take that away from my statement?"

You are advocating that person B has a communal property right to water discovered by person A. That is nothing other than a rejection of A's private property rights to the product of his labor (the appropriation of a bottle of previously unowned water).

"Besides, we are on a desert island and you have nothing to trade, because we were shipwrecked."

That is utterly false. We can trade labor. We can trade fish or any other scarce thing of value within our island universe. By rejecting private property, you destroy the benefits of trade.

"What reason do you have to believe that my homesteading of all the water would be more conflict free, in the presence of a thirsty shipwreck survivor, than some other form of determination of property?"

Simple, you have the right to trade some (or all) of the water for the things you desire more than water and the other party has the same right. The alternative is a tragedy of the commons.

Also, this thought experiment is flawed. There are no arbitrators. We must assume some third party enforcement, or the situation reverts to pure game theory, devoid of any greater economic insight.

"right now I am wondering how the ability to move it somehow doesnt constitute control."

You said you can drop the tank 6 inches. Can you raise it? Can you move it laterally? If you were flying an airplane and you can make it dive, but you cannot make it climb or turn, is it under your control? No, it isn't. What about a computer that you can turn off, but you can't otherwise use it or turn it back on?...

"its owned, because I homesteaded it, according to your own idea of establishing control."

No, you put a fence around it and restricted access to it.

Suppose that a person does not homestead a stretch of land but instead places a fence around it. In this scenario we stipulate that he "mixes his labor" only with that narrow strip of land upon which the fence rests, but to a sufficient degree in order to come to own it. What he has done, then, is to take possession of a narrow perimeter of land, surrounding property which he does not own, nor claim. In other words, he homesteads a very thin donut shaped parcel of land, which encircles property he neither owns nor claims. It is the contention of the present paper that this is not a legitimate homesteading scenario. The whole purpose of homesteading is to bring hitherto unowned virgin tenitory into private property ownership.

http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-children.pdf

"well its a reductio. If you dont think its absurd to assert my above statement, or if you think that the behavior I described would lead to less conflict rather than more conflict, then there isnt much for us to discuss."

What right does person X have to say person Y can't make unowned water into insecticide (or use it to fulfill his desires in any other way)? Again, you totally reject private property in favor of communal property. You merely imply that something is wrong with Y choosing to make insecticide with scarce water, but you don't explain how that is bad. Y would not make insecticide if it did not fulfill his desires more than all other alternatives.

Re: Aquifer rights

Malachi — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 00:06:52 GMT

Ok, so you don't recognize private property... That's cool, I just don't agree. And there is reason to believe that private ownership of the water is more efficient and conflict free than communal ownership. It allows for trade and the efficiency bonuses that come with the specialization of labor. It allows you to trade water for the things of value that I offer.

how could you possibly take that away from my statement? Besides, we are on a desert island and you have nothing to trade, because we were shipwrecked. What reason do you have to believe that my homesteading of all the water would be more conflict free, in the presence of a thirsty shipwreck survivor, than some other form of determination of property?

That isn't control. I refer to mixing labor only as support. I am basing homesteading on "first control" since it is more descriptive than "first use" or mixing labor".

right now I am wondering how the ability to move it somehow doesnt constitute control. I also wonder how you can propose a different kind of homesteading principle than the commonly accepted libertarian argument, when your original argument is that homestead is sufficient for all situations involving allocation of unowned property.

That is not consistent with the homesteading principle. It is aggression to prevent my free access to unowned "land".

its owned, because I homesteaded it, according to your own idea of establishing control. Why dont you figure out for yourself what it means to homestead something before you tell us that homesteading is always and forever the answer?

I believe you are correct. I don't see how that damages anything I have said.

well its a reductio. If you dont think its absurd to assert my above statement, or if you think that the behavior I described would lead to less conflict rather than more conflict, then there isnt much for us to discuss. I think you are fixating on what actions you consider to be homesteading, and forgetting the entire point of property rights (allocation of scarce resources, prevention of disputes over same).

Re: Aquifer rights

dude6935 — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 21:02:29 GMT

Do you believe that the atoms in an animal never change?

No.

Since by your reasoning, owning something means owning the atoms that make it up, that means that any atoms the animal loses are still owned by the person who owns the animal. So by your reasoning, anyone interfering with those atoms is necessarily harming the owner.

I have already addressed this in the very same quote you rebut. When the animal loses atoms, you generally abandon them (IE exhaled breath or evaporated perspiration). If you want to bottle my goat's breath go for it, I continually abandon that matter.

And how do you measure the water flow? With a water meter...

How is it impossible to know if people downstream have a water claim? If I am at the fountainhead of a stream, I cannot see evidence of water usage many miles downstream. However, if I am downstream, I can see clear evidence of water usage (or availability) upstream. If unused water is available, it will flow by me. If no water is available for my use, the riverbed will be dry.

Re: Aquifer rights

dude6935 — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 20:48:06 GMT

Malachi

somehow I think you would feel differently if that really happened and I "homesteaded" all the water on the island with one sip, and you died from dehydration. I can tell you right now that if our positions were reversed I would not recognize your claim to the entire bottle of water, and neither would I attempt to claim all the water. This is because the purpose of coherent property rights is to deal with scarcity in a manner that prevents conflict. But now that I know that you wouldnt have a problem, maybe I could take all the water and avoid conflict. Hmmmmmm"

Ok, so you don't recognize private property... That's cool, I just don't agree. And there is reason to believe that private ownership of the water is more efficient and conflict free than communal ownership. It allows for trade and the efficiency bonuses that come with the specialization of labor. It allows you to trade water for the things of value that I offer.

youre unaware that I have experience working with foundations and subfoundations. I move the entire tower six inches closer to the ground, I have mixed my labor with it and therefore homesteaded it. No one else has any water. Good system?

That isn't control. I refer to mixing labor only as support. I am basing homesteading on "first control" since it is more descriptive than "first use" or mixing labor".

there are multiple ways to control the tower, I dont have to demonstrate capacity to refill the reservoir.

Indeed.

I could simply restrict access to the tower or its contents. I could paint it and build a fence around it.

That is not consistent with the homesteading principle. It is aggression to prevent my free access to unowned "land".

Lets say you homesteaded the spigot but not the contents of the reservoir, and I homesteaded the contents by mixing potassium cyanide with it. Now I own the contents, you cant even open your spigot without aggressing against me by spilling some of my insecticide.

I believe you are correct. I don't see how that damages anything I have said.

Re: Aquifer rights

Autolykos — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 18:29:43 GMT

Marko:
In your example I agree, because we're talking about a mill. But this isn't as clear to me if donwstream there are just other portable pumps instead of a mill.

Ah sorry, that wasn't clear to me from your earlier post. Thanks for the clarification.

Marko:
If people downstream have been used to pumping out 200 units each, and now that people upstream have started pumping out 50 units each, have been reduced to pumping out just 150 units each, do they have a reason to complain about?

Hmm. I think the issue is whether the downstreamers are pumping out water constantly or intermittently. In the latter case, I don't think their water-flow rights have necessarily been interfered with. If they can obtain the same amount of water by pumping more frequently, then I don't think they have any cause of action against the upstreamers. Does that make sense?

Re: Aquifer rights

Marko — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 17:01:57 GMT

How is pumping water out with a portable pump any different from re-routing (part of) the river? If A's mill isn't able to run anymore because B started pumping water out of the river upstream from A, I'd say that B's interfering with A's previously homesteaded water flow.

In your example I agree, because we're talking about a mill. But this isn't as clear to me if donwstream there are just other portable pumps instead of a mill.

If people downstream have been used to pumping out 200 units each, and now that people upstream have started pumping out 50 units each, have been reduced to pumping out just 150 units each, do they have a reason to complain about?

Re: Aquifer rights

Autolykos — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 16:33:44 GMT

Marko:
Perhaps we could say that you homestead roughly the supply of water you need to operate something that you built? Eg a water mill, irrigation cannals, or a hydroelectric power plant. Intuitively it seems highly unfair for A to build a mill and for B to then re-route the river leaving the water mill out of function. Shouldn't B at least leave sufficient water in the old river route to continue to power A's mill?

That's what I subscribe to. Homesteading is bound by initial use.

Marko:
On the other hand if it's just people throwing tubes into the river and pumping water out with portable petrol pumps for some ad hoc irrigation, then perhaps a different rule should apply? It seems kind of bitchy of such people downstream to begin to complain when the folks upstream save up for pumps and start doing the same leaving less water than they had been used to for those bellow. It'd be kinda like if you had migratory animals, which were hunted only at their winter destination, and then when the folks in their summer destination started hunting them as well, and the people from their winter destinations would be all like you can't do that, these are just our animals, when actually they ain't in their hunting grounds.

How is pumping water out with a portable pump any different from re-routing (part of) the river? If A's mill isn't able to run anymore because B started pumping water out of the river upstream from A, I'd say that B's interfering with A's previously homesteaded water flow.

Re: Aquifer rights

Autolykos — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 16:22:07 GMT

dude6935:
If A homesteads a flow of 1 million gallons of water from creek C a year,

How would that be measured?

dude6935:
If the total flow rate of creek C is 1 million gallons of water a year,

Again, how would that be measured?

dude6935:
If I build on the drainage basin (or whatever it is called) that previously feed the creek with rain runoff,

Then after I build my house, if I collect the rain water from my own roof, I will reduce the flow rate of the creek to a level that is below A's water claim. Therefore, I have caused A harm.

So now I must pay damages to A in order to collect rainwater that falls on MY ROOF!

Aside from the issue of measurement, which I think is an essential part of your hypothetical context (and which you're ignoring), I think another issue is whether A will notice any difference between the time before you started collecting rainwater and afterward. On the other hand, by your reasoning, you building a house at all could be said to interfere with the 1,000,000 gallons/year flow rate that A has allegedly homesteaded.

dude6935:
And this situation is pretty much unavoidable since virtually the entire earth drains rainwater into streams and rivers, and it is impossible to know if people downstream have a prior claim on flow.

How is that impossible to know?

dude6935:
The oppose is not true. It is readily apparent that people upstream are using flow, because the water they are using will never come downstream.

Well, those specific water molecules may come downstream eventually, but not at the same points in time that they presumably would've come had they not been diverted.

dude6935:
And no, by my reasoning you can own an animal, but you cannot own the breath of air that it has not yet taken. You can only own the breath that is currently inside its body. You can only homestead matter, atom by atom. You can't lay claim to X number of free atoms in the atmosphere without identifying them. That is nonsense. The same goes for laying claim to indeterminate molecules of water in a river. How can you claim something that you can't even identify?

Do you believe that the atoms in an animal never change? If so, then you're mistaken. As I've already pointed out, they do change. Since by your reasoning, owning something means owning the atoms that make it up, that means that any atoms the animal loses are still owned by the person who owns the animal. So by your reasoning, anyone interfering with those atoms is necessarily harming the owner.

I, for one, don't think the concept of ownership necessarily or even usually extends down to specific atoms.

Re: Aquifer rights

Autolykos — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 16:04:22 GMT

Anenome:
Then they've de facto formed an ad hoc organization of one member and can deal with the other ad hocs via arbitration or agreement rather than participating in talks and agreements up-front.

In other words, we're back to square one, right?