Individual Liberty vs. State-Controlled Property
Free Markets, Open Skies And Decentralized Property Rights
Unleashing commercial drones under a command and control regime would mean trading in the Jeffersonian dream of individual liberty for the Maoist nightmare of state-controlled property.
The low-altitude economy is taking off. As this industry grows, it raises crucial questions about decentralized property rights, individual freedom, and the role of government. In the United States and other Western countries, the right to own and control property is a fundamental principle.
The scale of China's low-altitude economy in 2023 was approximately $71 billion, with a growth rate of 34%. This is expected to exceed $140 billion by 2026 and $420 billion by 2030. Companies like AutoFlight and Meituan are already making an impact.
AutoFlight's Electric Verticle Take and Landing (eVTOL) aircraft completed a test flight from Shenzhen to Zhuhai in just 20 minutes. Meituan's drones opened 53 routes and have completed hundreds of thousands of orders.
China's command and control economy is the opposite of the United States and other ‘Western’ countries. There are multiple differences, but the backbone is property. The right of individuals to own property, transact property, and allow or prevent people from entering their property.
Perhaps it can be thought that in certain circumstances, this command and control method makes getting things done quicker. There is no need to worry about the individual if no one owns anything.
China is prioritizing the development of its low-altitude economy. This new growth engine is expected to drive development in various regions, with six pilot cities (Hefei, Hangzhou, Shenzhen, Suzhou, Chengdu, and Chongqing) selected for opening low-altitude airspace. This has a significant impact on logistics, aerial surveying, and construction.
In the US, commercial drone adoption has accelerated in the past five years, with over 1 million drones registered and, in the UK, over 500,000 registered operators.
For this to happen, those in control want rewards. When a command and control economy and political structure allows drones and air taxis into the airspace above people’s homes, farms and workplaces, they do not ask permission from the homeowners; they view real estate owners’ rights as subordinate to the state’s rights. The state also wants to extract rent, which is paid for through the removal of regulatory hurdles for connected entities. The key point is that state controllers take air rights above individuals' homes, farms, and workplaces. In many cases, these real estate owners never had air rights and are always under the control of the state. These air rights resources are used, but they are used to make money that flows back up to the leaders and bureaucrats and away from the individual.
When we look at the US, UK, and other low-altitude economies trying to open up, this is not what people want. People do not want their property expropriated, fees and rents taken, and this money to flow up to bureaucrats.
If this were to happen, on a spectrum, the US would be at one end with an individualistic society where entrepreneurship and freedom are promoted. On the other end, China would have a command and control economy where property can be taken at will. We would move towards the Chinese end if we implemented a command and control strategy, and governments could take air rights from individuals and give them to drone companies or vested interests.
The increasing presence of drones in private airspace without permission raises concerns about property rights and data commercialization. As drones increasingly trespass to deliver food or collect valuable data, we're forced to confront a market anomaly: air rights owners are neither consenting nor getting paid. This isn't just a regulatory problem - it's a business opportunity waiting to be seized.
This issue is particularly striking in countries emphasising property rights, where we expect that using private airspace for commercial purposes would require explicit permission and fair compensation.
Some argue that a command and control structure, like Chinas, might facilitate such activities, but this is the thin end of the wedge. In countries that value property rights, addressing this disparity and ensuring that air rights owners are respected and fairly compensated is essential.
Was it foresight, the determination or an eye on how history played out that individual property air rights were enshrined in the US Constitution and further vested in the property owner?
"The right to life, liberty, and property are not conferred by the Constitution; they exist independent of it, were not derived from it, but are only recognized, and their enjoyment secured by it." - George Mason
Unlocking the skies - air rights are like any other property right. Empowering landowners to monetize their airspace - rent, sell, or permit drone usage as they see fit. By creating a decentralized market for air rights, we eliminate the middleman and unleash market forces to drive liquidity and returns for owners. The result? A new era of drone innovation and air taxi freedom, all grounded in the sanctity of property rights.
If anyone disputes this, we can look at air rights transactions - where the owner of their air rights have sold or leased the airspace above their property. In precisely zero of these transactions, have we seen a Federal Body take a cut? The reason is they have no claim to it. However we have seen a multitude of middlemen hands outstretched waiting for their alms, this is now changing.
Achieving greatness is to open low-altitude economies by leaning into the very thing that makes societies free and repels those who want to take individuals’ property rights. The positive news is we don't need to trade off individual rights to have a multi-billion-dollar low-altitude economy. We need to embrace the property rights we already have.
Thank you for reading; I hope you enjoyed it. Sign up on our app to learn more about how you can get involved in the air rights ecosystem.
