House of Commons, and Crack

From the e-mail file -- comments, dated February 6, on the issue of property rights as applied to the oceans, and "the tragedy of the commons" that is manifesting itself in that environment as well as everywhere else. The argument attempts to deal with some of the property rights concepts frequently raised by libertarians:

It strikes me that one has to move beyond a simplistic concept of private property whenever you're dealing with things that "move", i.e. are not, and cannot be, contained within definite boundaries. Air is the best example, but we also have moving water. E.g., I can own a pond but I'm unlikely to own the entire stream that runs from the pond to some river, and I'm unlikely to own the entire river from that point to the ocean, and I'm unlikely to own the ocean. I can more or less control the air within the 4 walls of my house, but beyond that? Even dams, which are, of course, always bones of contention, while being _located_ on private (or public, whatever) property have an impact downstream. Presumably, anyone building a dam would have to own everything downstream that could be impacted, all the way to the ocean. (This is probably why there aren't that many private dams.) Then you have related issues, like fertilizer, which is spread on private land, but makes its way into water tables, streams, rivers, etc. So one could argue that, basically, private property ideas simply do not -- cannot -- apply in these situations, which means that one would have to get at least permissions -- downstream or downwind -- for whatever one wanted to do that might impact air and water. Failing that, some organized entity would have to be able to step in and adjudicate, and enforce. So, do people have to organize a protective association for each instance of actual or potential "pollution", or do they simply organize a standing association which has the mandate to keep an eye on things and enforce when and where necessary? Thus we have another legitimate role for government which might just be better performed that way than using a strictly private model. (It gets even trickier when the pollution from one jurisdiction impacts a different jurisdiction, or even a different country.)

One can come up with theoretical cases fairly readily. A farmer uses fertilizer that makes its way into the water table and streams, and has an adverse impact downstream. He rejects all appeals to quit using the stuff. In order to enforce the rights of the people downstream, some private or public entity would have to be empowered to invade his private property and remove the offending substance -- thus, trespassing and stealing, if it's a private organization, vs. "enforcing the law" if its public. Similar cases can be made re: air pollution and dams. What if a colony of _beavers_ builds a dam that has an adverse effect downstream? But the person whose property lies next to the beaver dam doesn't mind, in fact he is a beaver buff. What rights do the people downstream have vis-a-vis breaking up the dam, which would have to involve trespassing on that property? Are beaver dams an "act of God" like hurricanes and earthquakes, that can change the course of rivers and reshape tidewater areas? (Or volcanoes, which pollute the air worse than -- oh, let's say a typical McDonald's fry vat?) Does _protection_ of private property include the (group) right to build dams, canals, etc. on expropriated property?

Another good one. (This happens a _lot_ in cities.) Let's say I live in a row of townhouses, and the one next door becomes a haven for rats, cockroaches, and other vermin. They, of course, invade _my_ house from time to time. What are my rights? Are rats and roaches the same as air and water pollution? And what about noise? It travels through the air, and cannot be readily contained within the boundaries of private property. And what about "soft" forms of air pollution, like cooking odors, "air fresheners", scented candles, strong disinfectants, dirty diapers, pets, etc. etc.? And does "visual pollution" count? (New Hampshire has a "view tax" that applies to property where you can see the mountains, or whatever. How about a "non-view" tax for people who _block_ the view other people would have had?) (I understand this is a major issue in Beirut, of all places.)

[A further comment, after the discussion "morphed" a bit, into the topic of "enforcing morality".]

If you think of the "war on drugs" as one of the manifestations of our politically dominant secular Puritanism -- i.e. as more of a moral crusade than anything having to do with "law and order" or public health, then it's not so far-fetched that _many_ people would be willing to spend huge amounts of money (including their own) on it. That certain drugs should be illegal, and that penalties for their use and possession should be severe, is an article of faith in this country -- "faith" because it certainly has no objective, i.e. scientific, validity. (And the economic argument is in precisely the opposite direction.) Combine this with the implicit notion that we somehow "need" a perpetual underclass of addicts, felons, prisoners, and losers in order to make everyone else feel better (i.e., virtuous) and you have a perfect formula for the continuation of the WOD -- even in the face of all other cultural trends, which at least _seem_ to be moving away from Puritanism. In this regard at least, Obama is no better than any other black "leader" who continues to sacrifice his own race on the white Puritan anti-drug altar. (This is the biggest sell-out of blacks by blacks in the country -- or maybe 2nd next to abortion. Anyone who could get this message across to even a fraction of the black community would be rewarded by seeing Jackson and Sharpton sent into exile.)