Comments on: Mineral Rights

By: nicholas gray

nicholas gray — Mon, 21 May 2007 00:28:15 +0000

James, I think your claim is an intriguing idea, though not recognised by any government on Earth. And since the Earth rotates, the ‘above the land to infinity’ presumably includes any satellites passing through ‘your’ block of unreal estate? Why not just ‘up to the top of the atmosphere’?
That way, you’re also not laying claim to any alien planets and civilisations, who might disagree with your ‘claim’.

By: James

James — Sun, 20 May 2007 02:53:27 +0000

I own my land down to Eart’s core and above the land to infinity. My land, my law.

By: Mark Hill

Mark Hill — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:34:05 +0000

What is the problem? This is an issue of contract law and conveyancing.

In Australia either a land titles search or a record going back 30 years would remedy any defect or qualification of title.

By: MTB

MTB — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:54:15 +0000

Since I am from the USA I am used to this kind of dual ownership of surface/subsurface rights. Unfortunately, here in the USA mineral rights can be sold by the land owner without selling the surface ownership. The seperation of mineral rights ownership and surface ownership rights can cause its own problems. Many times a buyer will purchase a property only to find he is, literally, sharing the ownership with a person or entity that owns the mineral rights. The mineral rights contract can give the m.r.owner the ability to cause damage to the surface owners property when extracting these minerals. The language used is very important in determining these rights between surface owners and mineral rights owners. MTB

By: Mark Hill

Mark Hill — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 03:36:35 +0000

Peikoff accurately identifies some of the root causes of the problems of the world at the moment in Middle Eastern aggression post WWII.

His solutions may be just but are not feasible and therefore fail Objectivism’s own test for going to war.

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:38:47 +0000

If ownership laws changed to include mineral deposits as I think they should, companies would have more incentive to clean up after themselves and create on-going investment and future projects. ie: people who rent a house don’t look after it as well as people who own a house. I’m sure you guys know this but how do you communicate this point to environmentalists who basically hate capitalism?
In addition, I think this issue relates well to the middle east oil situation. This was written by Lenord Peikoff on October 2, 2001: “Fifty years ago, Truman and Eisenhower surrendered the West’s property rights in oil, although that oil rightfully belonged to those in the West whose science, technology, and capital made its discovery and use possible. The first country to nationalize Western oil, in 1951, was Iran. The rest, observing our frightened silence, hurried to grab their piece of the newly available loot”.
http://www.peikoff.com/essays/end.htm
I don’t necessarily support Peikoff’s call to war made in 2001 but I think the above comment is highly accurate.

By: Mark Hill

Mark Hill — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 22:54:33 +0000

You have the right to collect that interstellar energy as it falls on your land…I don’t like the yield of that however!

By: terje (say tay-a)

terje (say tay-a) — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 11:09:04 +0000

That would imply that I own a different star system depending on the time of day. Unless your definition of “the heavens” is lower down.

By: JC

JC — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 12:10:14 +0000

It’s truly shocking how the Australian people actually allow such pathetic land rights. We should demand land rights from the heavens to the core.

By: terje (say tay-a)

terje (say tay-a) — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 02:14:30 +0000

In a way state ownership of mineral rights operates like zoning laws that prohibit mining unless you pay a fee, as well as allowing the government to force you off your land as they do for new road construction. In an urban setting there is some sence in this.

However in a rural context I would prefer that mineral rights that are currently owned by the state should be passed over to the land owners. As this would be a gift the government might make it look fairer by tayloring the deal such that these rights were leased back to the government for 30 years at an annual peppercorn rate of rent to ensure that current owners did not enjoy any short term windfall. The market would then have 30 years to adjust property prices. As prices increased the cost to the government of compulsory acquisition (at the market rate) would/might rise.