From: A
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 1:40 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: The political philosophy of farting

Dear Walter,

I just thought of a new question (which is serious): does farting violate the NAP? 

1. Inter-property case: 

Suppose there are two adjacent pieces of land. X homesteads one piece and, a few years later, Y homesteads another. Both of them fart once a day, and the gas spreads to the other piece of land. Does this violate the other person’s property rights? Or, in light of what Rothbard said about an airport having homesteaded the right to emit a certain level of noise before other people start building houses around it, does A have the right to fart, since he homesteaded the right to transmit a certain amount of gas over to the other piece of land before B arrived?

2. Intra-property case:

Suppose two people are in an elevator, or an aircraft. One of them farts. Does this violate the NAP? Of course it should depend on the person who owns the property (could be a third person), but if no rule has been stated and agreed upon beforehand, how should this be dealt with?

Thanks a lot! A

Dear A:

You’ve heard of cogito ergo sum. How’s about fartigo ergo sum?

In my humble opinion, farting is like exhaling.; noxious gases in both cases are released. However, we have all “homesteaded” our rights to do both, pretty much whenever and wherever we want to do so (always assuming no trespassing), since all our grandparents, presumably, did so. There is in law an important concept: it is called de minimus. My perhaps imperfect translation: the law does not concern itself with trifles. If this isn’t a trifle, then nothing is. However, there is a serious challenge lurking, hidden, in your question: cows do break wind and release methane (?) gas; pig farming does smell. And these macro trespasses cannot be dismissed on de minimus grounds. So, now we need to wheel in the heavy intellectual artillary to deal with these issues. And here I once again call upon an essay I consider the best contribution to the law and economics of pollution ever written (I use it in my law and economics classes):

Rothbard, Murray N. 1982. “Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution,” Cato Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, Spring; reprinted in Economics and the Environment: A Reconciliation, Walter E. Block , ed., Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, 1990, pp. 233-279; http://mises.org/story/2120; http://www.mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf

As to the two people contending over limited property, forget about farting, please. Take, instead, the case of two swimmers both wanting to hold on to a piece of unowned wood that can save the life of only one of them. Who should get licit ownership of this life-saver in libertarian theory? My answer, based on the homesteading views of Locke, Rothbard, Hoppe and Kinsella, is, whoever touches it first.

Best regards, Walter

The Best of Walter E. Block