Freedom, Society, and State - Ludwig von Mises Institute

allocating resources between current and future uses.
If forests were privately owned, and a lumber shortage
was expected the forest owners would have every incent
i v e bot h toeur t a i I theireur r en t produe t ion 0 f I urn be r
and to plant more trees in the expectation of selling
at a higher price in the future. These activities
would benefit consumers and conserve resources. On the
other hand, if lumber was becoming very plentiful or
wa s to be replaced in the near future by another rna terial,
the forest owners would rush to produce as much
lumber now, when it would still be of some value, as
they could. Hence, notes Rothbard, "the market economy
contains a marvelous built-in mechanism whereby the
resource owner's decision on present against future
produe t ion w i I I bene fit not 0 n I y the i r own incom e and
we a 1 t h, but a Iso t hat 0 f the rna s s 0 f cons ume r sand 0 f
the national and world economy."(77)
Economist E. J. Mishan argues that there cannot be
proper ty rights in air and water because, in contrast
to land, "they do not take on physically identifiable
forms."(78) But the libertarians do not believe that
t his i s a s e rious, prob I em . Fir s t, they poi n t 0 u t t hat
many goods now on the free market do not have identiflabl
e forms. Music is one; ownership of radio frequenc
i es is anot her. And second, t hey note tha t modern
technological advances such as electronic fencing have
faci Ii tated the development of property rights in these
areas.
Whether Mishan is correct cannot really be decided
un til the e f for tis rna de to devel 0 p proper t y righ t sin
these areas. It should be remembered that prior to the
d eve lopmen t 0 f pro per t y righ t sin Iand, itt00 wa s a
" col lee t i ve goo d • " Its e ems 1 ike 1y tome t hat sueh
problems are solvable by the universal private property
approach. But this merely means that it is one possible
method for dealing with the problems of pollution
control and conservation. It does not mean that it is
the best or most desirable approach. It could be that
its complexities would make it less convenient than
direct regUlation. On the other hand, its greater
fie x i b iii t yeo u I d rna ke t his a p pr oa c h qui teef fie i en t .
But these issues cannot be settled so long as the government
policy is to arrogate to itself ownership and
control of air space and water.
6. PUBLIC UTILITIES
How would "public utilities" such as gas, electricity,-
water, sewage dIsposal, and telephones, be han-
308