Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!caip!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!XEROX.COM!Hibbert.pa From: Hibbert.pa@XEROX.COM Newsgroups: mod.politics Subject: Re: Property rights & neighbors Message-ID: <12233501337.16.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Sun, 24-Aug-86 22:29:54 EDT Article-I.D.: RED.12233501337.16.MCGREW Posted: Sun Aug 24 22:29:54 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 25-Aug-86 19:30:20 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: Hibbert.pa@xerox.com Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 23 Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu To: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI You can offer to pay him to not cut the tree down. If you've got a greenhouse, you can offer to make a contract to protect your access to the sun. Length of residence doesn't seem important to me, but other libertarians disagree on this point. One point of view is that the first devoloper of a resource gains some property rights in it. This implies that later-comers must buy the rights to build a skyscraper that would block the light from someone who is depending on access to the light. I'm not sure which of these views I'd rather defend, but I don't see this as a weakness that completely rebuts my position. I guess this is one of the things that pushes me toward a minarchist position (minimal government to adjudicate property rights is okay. That's versus the anarchist view that says that governments can only accomplish things with stolen money (taxes), and so they are immoral.) Chris -------