I want to believe that the sky is free.

When we first began looking for a piece of property of respectable size, we shopped around in eastern Kentucky. It was then and there I learned that ownership of surface property does not necessarily entail ownership of the minerals beneath the surface, or the timber above.

You may not have the “rights” to the minerals and timber on your land.

In a common sense world, that don’t make no sense. But there it is. Someone sold off his right to his minerals and look what it got you.

I want to believe that if we struck crude here on the Farm, we’d be rich! [Spoiler: The link is the Wikipedia entry on The Beverly Hillbillies.]

I haven’t thought out what I seriously think about the sky, but it seems to me to be– at least at the folk level– a place detached from private property. It “belongs” to the birds, but since birds have no property rights other than those we afford them, it is public space.

I grant that since there are commercial aircraft flying through this public space, there is a need for convention– maybe even rules. But…

Let’s not forget what public means. “Public” does not mean “government.”

We the People should decide who is flying in our sky.

I note that here in Mississippi, you don’t disrupt the peace, you disrupt my peace. That’s an important distinction.

Which is apparently lost in Virgina.

http://www.wtop.com/120/2882193/Governor-Drones-over-Va-great-right-thing-to-do

4 Responses

My understanding is that your property lines go straight down and straight up – so that space above your lines is being infringed upon if any object flies across it. Hence we (as a nation) have to ask permission to overfly various nations, and not to do so might invite attack.

What you’re discussing though, is that somewhere someone who owned the property you own (or considered owning) decided to sell off some feature of that property – minerals, trees, water or some such. Once sold, it is no longer a feature of the property – unless you can buy it back. I am not aware that rights to the lumber on a property could be permanently sold off though – isn’t that a temporary thing? (so if they clean cut it and you started a new stand of trees, the second stand would still belong to you?)

Also, apparently state laws can change definitions of property lines. Looking at land in New Mexico, we learned that water rights do not “travel” with the land – the rights have to be bought from whoever owns them, which is entirely likely to be someone other than the owner of the land. Even if a river crosses your property, you might not have the right to draw water from it – if you don’t own the right. You cannot drill a well and take water from it – if you don’t own the water rights. And, we learned, the water rights commonly cost as much as the land itself.

Marica says:
May 31, 2012 at 2:22 am
The concept of property is an interesting one, made the more interesting in the context of the concepts of individuals and states.
It’s all very convoluted– as you note, your water may not be your water.
Also, the concept of “rights” is not fully grounded.
I think in Mississippi, as contrasted with Kentucky, property is more likely to be construed as you first outlined it: up & down.