An Albuquerque gas balloon pilot has been shot at as his balloon drifted over a corn field north of Lubbock, Texas.
If his balloon was over the property of another, then he was trespassing, and his act of calling enforcers to the scene was probably not justified. Of course, it wasn't particularly nice of the shooter to fire on the trespassing balloon, either. This is why I often include trespassing as an act that can justify a forceful response, but usually with the qualifier "sometimes" attached. I do think that there should be some ill-intent involved before shooting is the appropriate response to a trespasser.
A lost person who is not damaging your property should probably just be told to leave, or escorted off. I have led lost people from my property in the past and made it into a pleasant experience for us both. (And not all of them were cute girls, either.) There is no need, in most instances, to get twitchy about it.
I wonder if the violent response to the balloon may have been an unintended consequence of the stupid and evil War on (some) Drugs. If the corn field held a cash crop made artificially profitable by prohibition, an exaggerated response might have been inevitable, since discovery would have bad consequences (not that shooting at someone is the smartest way to avoid LEO attention).
A balloonist or two drifting over your land are technically trespassing, since I don't buy the lie that the sky is State property. However, I would tend to give them the benefit of the doubt as long as they weren't government employees. I don't think balloons can be steered all that well, and I don't think there is any harmful intent in most cases. However, I wouldn't support the arrest of a person who thought differently about their property rights.
Comments
So ... are you saying that the land-owner also owns the sky above his land up to -- where? Can a land-owner legally (in your view) shoot down an airplane that is 1000 feet above ground? Ten thousand feet?
I don't think you've thought this one out, Kent. It seems as if, in the Gospel According to Kent, no airplanes could fly anywhere, except perhaps over the oceans.
I take an anarchist Property Rights stance possibly a more mutualist stance, but a basic libertarian stance based on the Non-Aggression Axiom. I would never see a balloon in the air as trespassing on the property. I agree that this would be similar to shooting an airplane or satellite out of the sky.
Airlines could still operate, but it would force them to get an easement to travel over private property, negotiated with the homeowner NOT a pseudo entity like a government. If they choose not to, then their offending property is forfeit, simple as that.
Kent, I've got to disagree with you on this one. Seems to me that there really has to be a threat to a human being to justify violence-a hot air balloon ain't it. I'm well aware that many, Murray Rothbard for one, made a case very similar to yours. I just don't think 'trespass' against 'property' equates to a case of self defense where violence is justified. Even if someone is walking, not flying.
For what its worth, I don't think it ought to bring about 'enforcers' or 'arrest' either. Instead I suspect that such strict notions of 'property' would quickly fall victim to Darwin should a 'stateless' society ever RE-emerge. Without the 'enforcers' there is nothing to stop the family or friends of a victim of violence from exacting revenge. Violence would not be conducive to good health, then.
No doubt there would be, as there was for most of the human experience before the aberration of the 'state' came about, a veritable flurry of local customs that would provide a guideline for living in such a society-I doubt many would countenance firing on otherwise peaceful air balloons.
I think you are all missing my point here. Yes, it is technically trespassing to fly over private property, but since there was no threat or ill-intent (until enforcers were called, anyway) shooting at the balloon was NOT appropriate. Read what I wrote above again.
Ok, I re-read. I'm not clear what you position is. It sounds like you're saying that this a a bad idea, but a justified one.
Let's put it in a plain question; was the guy justified-morally under the non-aggression axiom-to go hot air balloon plinking? Yes or no?
In other words, is 'trespassing' agianst property equitable to an initiation of violence agianst person, and therefore due a response in kind....or actually in this case a vast escalation of violence(if there was any to begin with)?
In this case, probably no. As I keep saying, there has to be some ill-intent or threat of harm. I can't know the situation completely enough to know whether or not any such existed.
Kent, I almost always enjoy your articles but you really need to read some of Rothbard's writings on property rights and reconsider your position here.
Property ownership does not constitute an imaginary pillar extending from the core of the earth to the edge of space. If it did, you'd be justified in acting out against the likes of neighbors who tap unappropriated subterrannean water reservoirs that extend underneath your property, radio broadcasters whose radio waves pass across it, and every tiny speck of an airliner 30,000 feet above you.
Legitimate ownership is the exclusive right to use a given resource as you see fit, not a dictatorship over a given area. In the case of real estate this can look very much LIKE a territorial dictatorship because keeping people off of it and dictating what they can do on it is necessarry to protect your right to use it as a resource. But that power dosn't extend indefinitely above and below your land.
Continued in next post; my phone can only write so much.
"Property ownership does not constitute an imaginary pillar extending from the core of the earth to the edge of space."
Probably not, but... if I flew over your property at 6 inches off the ground you would call me a trespasser. If I was orbiting 600 miles above your property, you probably wouldn't. Now, if the orbiting astronaut and his equipment is being used to spy on you to gather information that can be used to harm you later, then you would be justified in taking action, if you had the capability. 400 feet up, as this balloon was, is a little more problematic to me. This is where ill-intent comes into play. In this case I do not believe the pilot had ill-intent, so I do not think the shooting was justified. But I wasn't there and don't know for certain what was going on prior, and I do not know if the shooter had been aggressed against by balloonists or pilots in the past that could have given him reason to be overly suspicious. And because the pilot called the LEOs he lost my sympathy.
If radio broadcasters' transmissions were causing you actual physical harm, then they would be trespassing. If you simply imagine that they are harming you, adjust your tinfoil hat and stop thinking you are justified in attacking the radio tower.
In some cases I do think that taking subterrannean water from under your property by another could constitute a violation of your property rights, but that would be too complicated to get into here.
Continued from last post...
An airplane (or a balloon) flying overhead doesn't necessarily interfere with this right to use your resources (land). If he (especially habitually) flies low and buzzes you (spooking your animals and interferring withh your right to sleep on your land, for example), thats a different story. But merely passing overhead does NOT constitute an act of aggression. I don't know enough about this situation to really make the call as to whether the ballooner's actions constituted aggression or not, but having seen ballons fly over my property before, I'm going to say "no." (In fact I usually enjoy seeing them, but that's aside the point.)
You are right on one thing, though: air isn't property of the state. But that doesn't make it the property of the land owner hundreds or even thousands of feet below who has most likely never put any airspace more than a few dozen feet above his land to any use whatsoever, either.
Continued in next post...
Continued from last post...
In my view, airspace is a resource that is essentially un-ownable as any use it is put to (basically, flight) will be very temporary and unlike real estate where the vestiges of ones labor (structures, landscaping, etc.) can be left behind as a legitimate claim to ownership even if thhe owner doesn't reside there permanantly, when airspace is put to use it is merely for passage and not a trace of one's labor is left behind.
An airline, for example, cannot claim exclusive rights to a flight route (though this is often exactly what happens when government is involved) as even a regularly used route will have gaps of hours at a time in which another airline could use or cross said route without physically impacting the other airline at all. The best they could claim is a temporary right to it's use y stating that the competing airline cannot cross the route between 8:15 and 8:45 as it will be in use at that time.
Continued in next post...
Continued from last post...
In closing, Kent, I ask that you somewhat reconsider your views here as they seem more feudalistic than anarcho-capitalistic, and are inconsistant with your usually impeccabble consistancy.
" I do think that there should be some ill-intent involved before shooting is the appropriate response to a trespasser."
This seems to be what you are all missing. Plus, due to the realities of the War on (some) Drugs and other government threats I can understand why some people over-react to someone flying over their property. I do not think a plane flying thousands of feet overhead is a threat or causes any harm UNLESS it is being used for surveillance to try to catch property owners doing "illegal" things. A balloon at 400 ft could realistically be used against property owners if the pilot thought it was his civic duty to call and report anything suspicious, which is why I am not so quick to condemn the shooter in this case. BUT all things being eual I don't think he was justified in shooting. However, without knowing the whole story I can't know that for certain, and since the pilot did call the LEOs when shot at, I tend to think the pilot is not necessarily a decent person.
On the subject of "who owns the sky"...any news on chemtrails? What exactly are they, who is spraying them?
Not my area of expertise.
Chemtrails: correctly called "contrails" a shortening of "condensation trails".
Jet engines burn kerosene or something very similar as fuel. The efficient burning of jet fuel produces two gases: carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O) at very high temperatures.
At typical jet plane altitudes (above 30,000ft) the temperature outside the plane can go to -65F or colder. At such temperatures, the 600F+ water vapor quickly cools (flash freezes) to 32F and becomes SNOW.
THAT'S what you're seeing behind those jet planes.
Nobody's dusting you.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!