Posted on 10/13/2001 8:34:37 AM PDT by annalex
The Saudi family already claimed all their land and any natural wealth discovered in the future in their land as the property of the state, the family, or all Saudi citizens, I'd bet. Perhaps they signed some profit sharing contracts with U.S. oil companies, but I doubt they signed away the rights to all oil as discovered in the future.
As to the rights of the discoverer, I think Demidog gives us a good starting point in that discussion:
I own the mineral and water rights to my property and I have no technological ability to drill for oil. Nobody may enter my property and drill for oil simply because they own the technology.
No, but you can check it and the other lists here.
Wait a minute. Oil under someone's desert belongs to the person who owns the desert.
What you just said would mean that if there's oil under my house, the first person who has the ability to drill can claim it, and he now owns the oil. Owning oil implies the right to drill it, which would mean having a right to set up an oil rig on my land without my permission and perhaps even a right to demolish my house to make room for it. Surely you can't mean that.
Our disagreement is that in my view the program in #37 is not enough to protect our lives and property at this point. Before we rebuild our foreign policy as per #37, we should occupy the countries that bred the terrorists or otherwise install governments there that can do our bidding on matters of security. Osama, Hezbollah and the like will not stop to hate us if we reform our charities or repeal H1B. Thus we need governments there that use sufficient force to deprive the terrorists of oxygen, while attractive to the passive Muslims. Such governments will not develop there organically, they have to be created top-down, a la General MacArthur.
I am not willing to take the chances with the Muslim world figuring out a Lockean society and it would be criminal of our government to leave our safety to such a long chance.
I am. They could form an absolute dictatorship under a monarchic despot, they could go totally socialist, they could read the US Constitution and do what it says just to shame us (now that would be novel), or they could commit mass suicide for all I care, just as long as they don't export the consequences beyond their borders.
If the owner owns the land for farming, industrial or recreational use, characteristic of real estate ownership in the West, his use of the property will be disrupted by the arrival of oil drilling equipment and such. Thus the common law develops the concept of the real estate as a cone extending from the center of the earth through the boundary and into the outer space, which implies the ownership of the mineral deposits underneath.
When violations of the cone occur in a way that does not disrupt the established use of the land, the common law quickly relaxes the rules of tresspass. Since an airplane at cruising altitude does not interfere with any land use, air travel across property lines does not constitute a tresspass; and conversely, one cannot claim celestial objects by choosing a moment in time when they pass through one's real estate cone and are not claimed by an equally enterpising neighbor.
If oil is discovered under an Arab dwelling, then, of course, in equity the dweller claims the oil regardless of his technological abilities. Unable to exploit the find, he may be willing to sell his oil rights, but that is a different story.
A typical for the Middle East scenario is that oil is discovered in the desert. While a royalty, or a government of the country may have a technical claim on the desert, there is no natural law provision for such claim, because the oil exploration in the desert will not disrupt any activity there.
This is an interesting instance of property rights refracting differently across civilizations.
I believe that the hemorrhaging of so-called moderate Muslims away from Islamic fundamentalism is the underlying motive for the Twin Tower attack. Part of the Western worldview that the Muslim East is gradually adopting is the desirability of global trade, which includes the trade in oil.
Yes. We do not have a conflict at the present time with the moderate Muslims anywhere; the militant fundamentalist Islam does. At the same time, as you point out, nothing good has come out of the Left's adventures in multiculturalism. I sincerely hope that the mass immigration coupled with easy welfare will be roundly discarded now.
But of course they'll "export the consequences". The Twin towers attack was such "export", adn there will be more to come.
About that you're right. Of course, bedouin tribes might well have a legitimate claim on the land. Peikoff's point, that Western companies owned the oil, is probably true. I don't know the history behind it, but I'd bet they bought the land, or at least the oil rights.
Not sure if the disruption of the owner's surface activity forms the main basis for his claim to subsurface wealth, but interesting.
When violations of the cone occur in a way that does not disrupt the established use of the land, the common law quickly relaxes the rules of tresspass. Since an airplane at cruising altitude does not interfere with any land use, air travel across property lines does not constitute a tresspass; and conversely, one cannot claim celestial objects by choosing a moment in time when they pass through one's real estate cone and are not claimed by an equally enterpising neighbor.
Elegantly put, that last bit.
If oil is discovered under an Arab dwelling, then, of course, in equity the dweller claims the oil regardless of his technological abilities. Unable to exploit the find, he may be willing to sell his oil rights, but that is a different story.
Seems normal enough.
A typical for the Middle East scenario is that oil is discovered in the desert. While a royalty, or a government of the country may have a technical claim on the desert, there is no natural law provision for such claim, because the oil exploration in the desert will not disrupt any activity there.
I don't know that much about natural law theory, but I seem to remember that citizens delegate certain natural rights to legitimate governments in return for more effective protection of same. Within that fully developed and properly limited delegation, I can imagine that governments might limit land ownership to citizens.
When I said I owned the mineral rights to my property, I meant that I actually made the effort of purchasing those rights. The old owner has 49% and I have 51% with right of refusal for the other 49%. Meaning that not a drop of oil will leave the ground unless I say it's OK. It's a sad commentary that some shmuck could trespass on my land had I not purchased seperate mineral rights but I digress.
What Piekoff and you are suggesting is that the nations which owned claim to the terrirory could actually have their rights to decide what happens to that territory (ie; Soverignty) disregarded simply because an oil witch determined that there was oil underneath the supposed barren desert and had the technology to extract it.
This simply makes zero sense in any sense of the word common or otherwise.
Unless the mineral rights were explicitly purchased, then the government of whatever nation could tell the driller to pound sand. "Thanks for discovering oil. Now, get off my land."
Furthermore, it is the height of hubris to make such a bald attempt at stealing and to later get upset because the jig is up.
America and other nations seem to believe that it is fine for companies to plunder the resources of nations which do not have the technological capability to tap those resources. We're the advanced society after all.
If you want a fine example of ruthlessness in this regard simply examine the history of DeBeers and the various diamond mines that have operated under virtual slave labor conditions while the DeBeers family literally and figuratively strips the 3rd world of its riches.
I am not railing against capitalism in any sense. However, that type of activity is completely and wholly an anathema to the principles on which our nation was founded upon. I realize that DeBeers is not an American family so we need not confuse the issue too much. But American oil companies most certainly have acted in a similar fashion and Piekoff's disregard for historical facts and utter sloppiness in defining the issues undermines if not totally repudiates his own message.
It is not the job of our military to right the perceived wrongs of actions against U.S. corporations abroad.
What Piekoff and others suggest is that we would be within our rights to go annex that land which "we" "developed" since the third world countries which control this land consist of ignorant savages who are unable to advance themselves technologically.
This is the same sort of criminal and tyranical attitude which was used to decimate an American Indian population that was at 1780 or so estimated to be three million or more.
The excuse has been used time and time again to obliterate "savages" all over the world who didn't happen to live the way we felt was "civilized."
And you might have guessed by now that this particular attitude disgusts me. Because it is a lie. The rationalization is merely an excuse to rob and steal in the name of "higher good." And the mess that is the middle east is just another instance if this example only the savages were in this case nomadic Arab tribes who were existing quite well without the intervention of tyrants trying to "civilize" them. The world is full of "savages" and simply because one set of savages wear Armani suits and attend some sort of church service on Sunday does not make them any less savage.
That I can't imagine. Among the natural rights that an indivudual has is the right to exchange his property at will. If he wishes to exchange property with a non-citizen, the govenrment's job is to assist in the transaction, not to ban it.
Yes, I do suggest that in a free society under natural law a government's role is to protect rightful ownership claims of both citizens and non-citizens. While a citizen has some political rights in addition to his inalienable rights, a foreigner maintains his natural rights. So, if in absense of any government a discoverer can make a claim on the oil he discovered in the desert, the presence of national borders is not sufficient to deny his claim. His claim should be denied if he would materially disrupt the habitual land use.
I can see an argument for the opposite position: that a government can limit the claims of unclaimed land to its citizens. However, when there is no intention to actually explore the land and the minerals therein, -- such was the case in the technologically backward Arabia -- such government land grab would be, in my opinion, excessive.
Regarding our government defending property rights abroad, I agree that an American citizen (or a corporate citizen) should not expect our government to protect his rights abroad with the same energy as at home. The typical role of our government is to defer to the laws of the foreign land. However, when such laws are at significant variance with the natural law, or simply are not enforced, then our government may have a cause for war.
"Savage" is a vague term and I prefer not to use it.
And why do they have to have the intent on extracting the resources? Since when is that a test for property rights?
Regarding our government defending property rights abroad, I agree that an American citizen (or a corporate citizen) should not expect our government to protect his rights abroad with the same energy as at home. The typical role of our government is to defer to the laws of the foreign land. However, when such laws are at significant variance with the natural law, or simply are not enforced, then our government may have a cause for war.
The only cause for war should be to repel an act of aggression which threatens our Sovereignty. Nothing more, nothing less. Oil is no excuse.
Nor is being "technologically backward." While you inist you don't want to use the word "savages" you use an interchangable term and pretend that you aren't thinking within that box. Soveriegnty, if respected, allows countries to make their own decisions including being technologically backwards. The principles of freedom demand that we respect those decisions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.