I built a small robotic device which over the last couple of years circled the surface of the sun at extreme speeds enough times so that I can literally claim every single inch of it as my homestead since I mixed my labor with it. Honestly, I'm getting kind of tired of all you freeloaders not paying for what my sun is giving you. Sunlight licenses are everything above subsistence or I will stop providing you with sunlight and you'll have to live in a cave for the rest of your life. I merely want my property rights to be respected. You have to understand that. It's a voluntary exchange. You get sunlight. You benefit. I get money. I benefit. It's a win win arrangement.
Well, technically there isn't a hard surface like on planet earth. But it's all just atoms anyways just like the surface of the earth. You have no logical basis for your objection. Fact is, it's my property now. Deal with it.
reminds me of that water company(Nestle?) that got the legal rights to all rainwater in Bolivia, wtf?...people weren't even allowed to collect rainwater for their own use...needless to say that didn't go over well and the company got run out of the country...
Your sunlight is causing sunburn, dehydration and desertification all over the world. It is also very bright, creating a nuisance and making it difficult to sleep during certain hours. Where shall we send the lawsuits?
Look, I'm done arguing semantics. If you don't like freedom and private property rights you are free to leave this planet and find one outside of this solar system where they sympathize with your communist beliefs.
They didn't get the legal rights to rainwater. That was just a bit of hyperbole in the slogans used by protesters. It was a consortium of companies, dominated by Bechtel, which bought the rights to the water system in Bolivia. They then raised the rates. Likely they were too low. As you say, they were run out of the country by a popular uprising and the water system was taken over by the protest leaders. The water system has not improved. It should be noted that in the US, some jurisdictions do claim right to the rainwater that falls one private property.
I'm not paying, but I'm not living in a cave, either. But since it's your sun, you can turn it off any time you like, Sunlord. It is a provocative argument, though. Definitely these kinds of possibilities call into question the validity or consequences of libertarian claims that one can simply mix labor with something to own it. Probably, however, one could point out that sunlight is a Public Good, and that, like the air, can't be owned by anyone.
I'll just have to evict you from this solar system. You're not going to get what I worked so hard to acquire for free. There's plenty of suns out there. Get one for yourself and stop whining. The atmosphere, sunlight, land...you name it.
Land doesn't fit the same definition of a public good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good A public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous in that individuals cannot be effectively excluded from use and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others.[1] Examples of public goods include fresh air, knowledge, lighthouses, national defense, flood control systems and street lighting. Land may be divided and fought over, and some may easily be excluded from its use. Sunlight is different. Just as you can't prevent some people from using the air without otherwise violating their rights, you can't turn off the sun for some people but not others. Sunlight is a public good. Only the strictest, and most extreme, right-libertarians don't regard public goods as something worth protecting or promoting through governmental intervention. In other words, all your arguments really do is suggest that a libertarian should accept that some things are public goods and cannot be owned. But even without the public good argument, I think you would be hard pressed to explain, from a libertarian standpoint, why people need to get out of the sight of something that is in plain sight. If I want to take off my clothes and wander around the streets, that may be my prerogative, but it is hardly legitimate for me to demand that you pay or leave. Likewise even if we grant that you own the sun, this doesn't give you the right to tell us to leave the sight of the sun; it merely means that you may turn it off or move it as you wish. So like I said; go ahead and turn off the sun if you want. I won't stop you, Sunlord.
Robotic devices don't cut it. Get back to me when you actually live there or manage to build a structure on it. If Apples from your tree fall on my land they become my apples ditto sunlight.
If a person delivers a package to my door that I didn't order, it is considered a gift and I am under no obligation to pay for it. The same is true of your sunlight, if you deliver it to my property, even though I didn't order it, it is a gift and I am under no obligation to pay you anything. If you want me to stop using sunlight, stop sending it.
Does this mean we can sue for damages such as sunburn, skin cancer, or any inconvenience brought on by a solar flare?
Turn off the land you claim to own, if you don't want me using it. Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: the land would be there, just the same, even if you and every previous owner had never existed. Like land and every other natural resource. - - - Updated - - - Careful. Your rent is already more than you can afford.
I do. I turn it off with a piece of technology you may recognize as a "wall," providing selective access using state-of-the-art doorknob technology. It isn't that I particularly object to the idea that land should be held in common, but your arguments are ineffectual. Land is easily divisible and its use has been made exclusive for time immemorial. In this sense, it quite obviously doesn't fit the usual definition of a public good.
One can be excluded from using fresh air or sunlight just as one can be excluded from using land. Use of sunlight by one individual definitely reduces availability to others. It's called, "shade." And land. Likewise fresh air and sunlight. In fact, the major advantage of most land is that it intercepts sunlight. You can't stop people from using land without otherwise violating their rights, either. No more than land -- except legally, of course. And apologists for landowner privilege. Like land. That's easy: it's private property. Same reason people can't perform and record music that is plainly audible on public airwaves. <yawn> Yet landowners demand that others pay or leave... Here I am. Turn off "your" land, or move it if you wish... Get out of his sunlight, or pay up.
No, of course you don't. Garbage. That's how you control access to improvements. The land is still there, ready to use. You can't turn it off, and you know it. LOL! "Slaves are easily fettered, and their status as property has been accepted since time immemorial." In fact, there have been slaves a lot longer than there has been property in land. Which may not be a coincidence...
