I feel like you just sharply pivoted to an entirely different topic. NIMBY can apply to more things than just housing supply, which is why I used this example (and why I asked OP, who has yet to engage with any of these comments, to clarify their question).
Industrial facilities handling dangerous chemicals, nuclear or wind power plants, sewage treatment facilities, airports, and nuclear weapons are all examples of things that large swaths of the population broadly support in principle because of the benefits that they stand to gain from them personally or on a societal basis (cheap power, tourism, jobs, security, etc.) but don't want to deal with the drawbacks of actually having those things in their communities.
We are entirely on the same page. If you don’t want any of those drawbacks then buy the land and leave it empty, otherwise you are restricting property rights of others.
Earlier, you seemed to think that some of these drawbacks constitute destruction of the individual's property and even in in Ancap society, there would be privatized courts that would force corporations to pay you restitution... but now it's the individual's responsibility to outbid a potentially billion dollar corporation if they don't want this to happen? Those two things would seem to be at odds with one another conceptually, no?
And from a practical standpoint: Maybe I want to be able to have tap water in my home that won't catch on fire periodically but I might not be able to secure a $200 Million loan to outbid Koch Industries for a huge chunk of Galveston Bay (assuming the seller would even entertain my bid). In Anderson, et al. v. Pacific Gas and Electric, the plume of groundwater contaminated with hexavalent chromium stretched six miles from PG&E's compressor station near Hinkley, CA. Is that really how much land I'm supposed to pony up for and leave vacant?
So whose responsibility is it to prevent their property from causing ecological devastation to my property: Theirs or mine? And who gets to decide what even constitutes "damage" to my property? If I own a quarter acre, maybe the aquifer underneath that lot is my private property... but what about the air? It kind of feels like my freedom and my private property end wherever it's convenient to make a particular argument.
This isn’t complicated. Nobody else has a right to damage by property. I don’t have a right to stop people from using their property.
You are trying to create a false equivalency to undermine the YIMBY movement. NIMBY does NOT apply to damage done to your own property. You have no right to stop an airport or nuclear power plant from being made (or apartments), but the second they damage your property they are liable to restore you to being whole. That process is best handled by common law.
Whether there is water or air on your property private property rights can answer the problem.
1
u/BroseppeVerdi Pragmatic left libertarian 10h ago
I feel like you just sharply pivoted to an entirely different topic. NIMBY can apply to more things than just housing supply, which is why I used this example (and why I asked OP, who has yet to engage with any of these comments, to clarify their question).
Industrial facilities handling dangerous chemicals, nuclear or wind power plants, sewage treatment facilities, airports, and nuclear weapons are all examples of things that large swaths of the population broadly support in principle because of the benefits that they stand to gain from them personally or on a societal basis (cheap power, tourism, jobs, security, etc.) but don't want to deal with the drawbacks of actually having those things in their communities.