In terms of assigning property rights there exists many avenues and ideas none of which the majority I feel agree on. Even property rights in America in many cases fail to allocate even the fundamental basics found in the definition of property rights. (Alchain, Armen’s Property Rights) states that, “A property right is the exclusive authority to determine how a resource is used.” Now, would American property owners consider this definition true? I would say no, because even though a person technically “owns” the land they are not truly free to determine how its resources are utilized. In many cases there are laws that restrict the property owner in his actions. These include zoning laws and eminent domain laws. Zoning laws enacted by the government restrict certain building and development on the property. Eminent domain laws enacted by the government allow the government to seize a property owner’s land if just compensation is given. Even with just compensation though who is to say that the owner happily giving up his land to the government. Land which according to the previous definition was his or her's “exclusive authority.”
As Alaskan’s many of us have seen how people feel about their property rights in terms of its’s defense. Now, the question that comes to my mind involves property rights in terms of the the bigger picture. It has to do with how we should allocate property rights and to what extent. I think the effects of allocating portions of the ocean into property rights as discussed in (Murphy, Robert on market stewardship) would be catastrophic. If individuals owned sections of the ocean people might be inclined to attempt to seize control of their neighbors portion and intern double their lively hood. This would cause much fighting and as (Rheingold, Howard) said in “The new power of collaboration” a sort of survival of the fittest mentality. Even though there would be theoretically an equal share everyone would want a chance to move up and perhaps obtain a larger part of the pie. In the same aspect equal distribution could spark poaching of the resources within these properties. This equal class separation in my opinion always fails so assigning property rights to water in my opinion is a bad idea. Another way to save the tuna should be instituted because their are many solutions that could present less coercive repercussions. I also believe that coercive allocation is risky and unnecessary.
Assigning property rights to land and structural surroundings is a form of non-coercive implementation. In this model the rights are connected directly to something that is easily divided, remains relatively unchanged, and can be guarded and protected by not only the owner but local authorities. Allocating the ocean and allowing un regulated sub surface rights means risking the surrounding properties would lack enforcement and inadequate protection from there neighbors both foreign and domestic.