Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscd5.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!gummo!whuxlb!pyuxll!eisx!npoiv!npois!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscd5!lvc
From: lvc@cbscd5.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: rights and conflicts
Message-ID: <428@cbscd5.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Aug-83 12:28:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbscd5.428
Posted: Fri Aug 19 12:28:13 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Aug-83 08:23:15 EDT
Organization: Bell Labs <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 47

Stan is exactly on target when he says a proper definition of rights
and freedoms do not automatically exclude conflicts.

If we have a situation where right and wrong are not clearly known
then it is rational to engage in conflict.  I didn't say aggression
and I don't mean aggression.

For example, before airplanes were invented the concept of air space 
rights was not around.  Suppose the Wright brother's in their 
excitement flew over a farmers land next to Kitty Hawk.  It would have 
been perfectly legitimate for the farmer to get out his shotgun and shoot 
at them.  The farmer would think that this represented a danger to him 
and he probably assumed that his property was being tresspassed.

Another example that presents problems is the issue of mineral rights.
Do I have the right to dig a cone straight to the center of the earth ?  
Am I allowed to dig under the surface of the property of others ?  
If I am allowed to dig under the surface of the property of others am 
I allowed to dig out so much that the surface caves in ?  Or should 
supports be left behind to prevent cave ins ?

The solution I would propose is that you can dig out a frustrum to a 
certain depth under only your property (not clear how far down yet, 
say 1/10th the way to the mantle) and *nobody* would be allowed to 
dig below that depth.  Nobody would be allowed to claim a property right 
below that depth.  If someone can show a causal link between digging
below a certain depth and causing damage to the property of others, my
proposal would be shored up.  Clearly *some* depth is dangerous to dig
below.

If my neighbor imposes a solution on me that is different than mine,
say he wants to dig below my property, then I would be justified in
compelling him not to.  If I am told what the proof for their
solution is and I can find holes in it, I am not bound by it.  And if
my neighbor can find holes in my solution then he is not bound by it
either.  We will fight it out, and the person with the greatest amount 
of force will win.  If I am dealing with someone that has ethics of 
baboons, and won't accept reason in the first place, then I'll have 
to fight them anyone.

Might does not make right but it is legitimate to use it when right 
and wrong are not known.

Expecting flames,

Larry Cipriani
cbosgd!cbscd5!lvc