Goat Evisceration
I imagine a country where everyone owns land under an allodial title and where the rights of an individual are protected by a limited government. I own…say, 10 acres. My neighbors have similar chunks of property. One of them plays music very loudly. One of them refuses vaccinations. One of them eviscerates goats for the fun of it.
These are all free people whose personal lifestyles infringe on mine. I do not want to hear my neighbor’s rap music. I shop at the same place as my vaccine-adverse neighbor. I have a real problem with random goat evisceration.
Without compromising the freedom of the individual: How do we deal with such behavior?
It’s popular to say, “Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose” – and that’s a clear example of one person doing damage to another. But according to the “butterfly effect”, every act in the world potentially affects the entire world. This is what governments use to take control of our lives in the interest of the common good. Since everything we do potentially affects everyone else, they all get a say in what we do.
In a pure, theoretical, world the problem is as simple as the nose on my face. Unfortunately, the complexity of the real world spoils that clarity and means that there will always be a gray area. How do we deal with the gray lines of the real world and maintain freedom?
Jan and Wm
(from a lunchtime conversation)
These are all free people whose personal lifestyles infringe on mine. I do not want to hear my neighbor’s rap music. I shop at the same place as my vaccine-adverse neighbor. I have a real problem with random goat evisceration.
Without compromising the freedom of the individual: How do we deal with such behavior?
It’s popular to say, “Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose” – and that’s a clear example of one person doing damage to another. But according to the “butterfly effect”, every act in the world potentially affects the entire world. This is what governments use to take control of our lives in the interest of the common good. Since everything we do potentially affects everyone else, they all get a say in what we do.
In a pure, theoretical, world the problem is as simple as the nose on my face. Unfortunately, the complexity of the real world spoils that clarity and means that there will always be a gray area. How do we deal with the gray lines of the real world and maintain freedom?
Jan and Wm
(from a lunchtime conversation)
I have no idea what the neighbors are doing today. They are all quite liberal, the only one that is a conservative can't vote anyway, he's Canadian. I can contend with the liberals as long as they keep the music down and mostly keep to themselves. The lawyer next door is the worst, and I’m sure he’ll never see my comment here in the Gulch. My wife and I are the friendly ones in the neighborhood and only one of the liberals really responds favorably to us. She is married to the conservative Canadian across the street and we even on occasion discuss a little politics.
And now speaking of eviscerating goats, a long time ago my little brother (suicide 12/25/85 at 39 years) met my new wife the first time when he brought some fresh pork up from his farm in Buxton, Oregon for a winter kickoff party we were throwing. When I say fresh, I mean fresh, he brought it up on a rope. It jumped out of the back of his pickup and came screaming into the house. My wife jumped up on the counter when she heard it squeal, yelling, “Get that pig out of my house”.
And now the rest of the story. We eviscerated that little fresh wiener pig in the back yard, storing those parts most of us don't eat in a five gallon bucket. I must have had too much to drink as I gutter spiked the head onto a board (as a joke), and asked my wife where I can hang it. Somehow she didn't see the humor we saw in it. Anyway, there was a garbage strike at the time, so what would I do with that bucket of soon to be smelly stuff? Since it was close to Christmas, we put the bucket in a box, wrapped it with gift wrap, put it in the back of my pickup, and drove to the store to get some more charcoal. Of course I parked far enough out from the store entry where my truck would not be seen easily from the store. And what would you know, problem solved. Someone got a huge surprise.
If your neighbor eviscerates your goat, then your property rights are primary and have been violated. If your house is next to the common property line and your neighbor places giant stereo speakers at the property line and pointed at your house, then you probably have a strong case. Otherwise, 10 acres is a big plot of land nowadays, and sound energy attenuates significantly with separation distance. If your neighbor has smallpox and says it's not contagious while mingling around everyone, then you likely have a strong case. Otherwise, you are likely over-reacting and worrying yourself unnecessarily.
As you probably could tell by my response, I'm not the meddling type. While I do not approve of many things others do, I tolerate it. I also try not to do anything I think might annoy my neighbors, being as conscientious as I can. I realize that is a rare trait in modern America, based on countless observations I have made of others...
There is a quote from Rand, which I recall from 40+ years ago, so I'm ham-handedly paraphrasing (and prepared to be called totally incorrect in my recollection): "There are no gray areas. The concept implies knowledge of its component colors: black and white, and therefore knowing the right from wrong."
As I recall, I agreed with that statement in the context it was made, which I assume had to do with major issues of morality.
But I do believe that in a complex, advanced society, issues of property rights, and, especially in close quarters, necessarily lead to "non-major" issues which are not black or white, and call for a court or private arbitration, or local laws. Loud music is, IMO, a pretty straightforward one: limited somehow, in my experience, by time of day (nothing "disturbing the peace" after 10PM). Sounds reasonable to me, yet hardly "black and white".
Having lived in Manhattan for a time, my example would be: "Hey, I bought this apartment because of it's great view of the GW bridge. Now I find out a building is going up next to mine, and will block my view. Are my property rights being violated?"
Or, and this was a hot topic in my little rural Canadian county for the past few years: My neighbor is offered a ton of money and tax incentives to put up a huge wind turbine to feed to electric company. By what right or rights can I object? That it's unsightly and ugly? That it makes noise? Or, that in reality it is truly inefficient and does not really help the supposed "global warming" problem (good luck with that last one).
I think I've only added more questions. I do believe there is some sort of answer, based on reason, to resolve these types of issues, and that others with more actual legal education and experience in property rights law can answer.
(FYI: it was fun to watch my local situation.The Canadian county I live in is, well, kind of like California, except further Left. So it was liberal vs. liberal. In the end, there wasn't even the merest reference to "property rights". Pro-turbines were "green environmentalists", anti-turbines were those that felt turbines would interfere with the local "micro-ecosystem". Charts upon charts of wind energy contributing passive, sustainable, eco-friendly power to the economy, vs. charts of numbers of migrating birds killed by turbines, etc. The latest final solution, but subject to appeal: the turbines lost, as their presence would somehow interfere with the migration patterns of a unique local turtle. I'm overwhelmed by the triumph of the turtle.)
Unrelated to Objectivism, there's something satisfying, in a twisted sort of way, to think that a California wind farm might slice to ribbons the last remaining Spotted Owl.
More on topic, there have been many lawsuits for "view pollution." It seems that when some people have a view of a beautiful lake or mountain it doesn't matter how many miles it covers or how many landowners are involved, they believe they have the right to that view for all of time. Lawsuits ensue!
I have a camp deep in the woods and I have to drive on paper company roads to get there. Last year they clear cut a LOT of the land all around me, even very close to my camp. It definitely wrecked the beauty of driving through the woods and it makes me sad look at acres of bare ground and not be able to recognize the land my family has enjoyed for 75 years.
But then I remember my grandfather telling me how we used to be able to sit on the porch and see all the way up the lake - but now we can't. The darned trees were more interested in growing than maintaining our view. The woods that my dad and I enjoyed didn't used to be there! The old timers who actually lived off of that land put in a tremendous effort just to keep their hunting trails clear as the woods grew up. I know because I've barely kept the trail from my camp to one of the neighbor's camps passable.
As much as we sometimes lament it, the world changes all around us. Over time that land will grow back up. And as I keep reminding my dad, who takes the logging very hard, if it weren't for the paper company we wouldn't have the roads we use to get to our camp and we'd have to come in by boat.
Boy, I guess I really wandered of target there!
+2
Much of her commentary deals with the idea that a valid moral code must allow the explicit determination of whether a specific act is good or evil. This makes sense from mathematics since a set of axioms is considered inconsistent if you can prove something both true and false at the same time using them. Of course a set of axioms can be consistent but still not allow you to determine the truth of all propositions. Godel says this is always the case with any set of axioms. What this says about systems of moral axioms, I'm not sure.
In any case the usage I intended was more along the lines of what Rand's comments:
"There are, of course, complex issues in which both sides are right in some respects and wrong in others -- and it is here that the 'package deal' of pronouncing both sides 'gray' is least permissible. It is in such issues that the most rigorous precision of moral judgment is required to identify and evaluate the various aspects involved -- which can be done only by unscrambling the mixed elements of 'black' and 'white.'"
So I withdraw the use of gray and substitute "complex, requiring rigorous precision". So, how do we do that?
However, speaking of shades of grey; we had two cases in recent years that worked out otherwise.
In Bend, a lot owner had a permit to build his house to the legal height but the lot owner behind him sued, claiming he was told his view was unobstructable but it wasn’t. Nevertheless, the judge ruled for him basically deciding he had the right to his view because he got there first and the new lot buyer was SOL.
In Oceanside, a new owner bought the local tavern, which was two storey's high and the three houses behind him could see over the roof, He got a permit to build a legal third story apartment for himself, blocking the view of their homes and “All hell broke loose,” The county steadfastly maintained he had the right to the new construction but the guy had a local business and the town boycotted it in sympathy for the aggrieved view losers (who knew or should have known they could someday lose their view. So, the business crashed he sold out. The new owners, with a more upscale restaurant-coffee bar are doing fine and the three house have no view.
Some seem to want no limits on what you can do on your property at all, others have different approaches.
Are you advocating for "view rights"?
Your example of the high-rise being built in front of a 'view home' is another good instance of what one person perceives as 'rights' interfering with another individual's freedom. I do not think that any of us would say that the person building the high-rise on his own property does not have a right to do that, but it does lower the value of the 'view home'.
Jan
As far as the high rise issue, yes, I agree and I don't remember any legal cases where someone tried to block a building over the view issue...although that doesn't mean there have never been any.
I do remember a couple of other amusing ones from my days in upstate NY. Actually these were in the Berkshires of Mass., about half an hour from my NY house. Also, like most of Mass., pretty much to the Left.
In one small town, the neighbors complained that a man painted his house a color that didn't fit in with the "traditional New England feel" of the town. So he then painted it in about 7 different bright pastel shades, fairly random pattern. I guess there was nothing they could do, as it stayed that way for the few years I lived up there. I think I'd like to meet that guy.
In a close by, smaller, but really old town, kind of like thew original Model T car: "You could have it in any color, as long as it's black". In this town the by-laws said the quaint colonial houses all had to be painted completely "colonial" white (maybe you could have black shutters). That doesn't bother me too much, as it was known before you purchased a house there, what the local laws were.
I guess I'm not contributing much but anecdotes to the discuss, but as I said earlier, I'm traveling and chilling in a hotel room. Maybe I'll get more serious as the night wears on, or when I get back home tomorrow...
And BTW: Up the Turtle!!!
[edit for some missing content]
How do you define the freedom of the individual? Is it unlimited? It cannot be a state of nature since you have premised a limited government. What is the scope of this freedom? This limited government would have laws against unwarranted noise and animal cruelty. There is no gray area here.
PS There is no such thing as a "...pure, theoretical world..." Humans must exist prior to governments and property rights. That is, unless you subscribe to Plato's Theory of Forms.
If I were to describe my vision in...geometric...terms, it would look like this: Imagine that you go into Photoshop or a similar program. You 'draw' a foundation of laws - the Constitution. This is the lowest layer of the structure and these laws are designed to restrict the government and protect individual freedom. Changing this layer causes an 'earthquake' to all the layers above it - you do not change the Constitution often.
For the second layer, put down a 'hex grid' of private properties. When an individual buys one of these properties, he is already aware of the foundation Constitution layer and how it effects him. Each of these properties is owned by an individual and they can do 'whatever they want' within those boundaries.
The third layer is a thin grey layer that goes on top of the hexes...it has the laws that compromise individual rights - such as prohibiting animal cruelty, enforcing noise abatement, etc. These laws define the limits to the 'whatever they want', are subject to local control, and can change to reflect alteration in circumstances. Because these laws change more rapidly, when you buy a piece of property you do not necessarily know all the laws that will eventually apply to your land.
Right now, in our current society, the foundation Constitution layer has become compromised (and saps the rights of the individual as much as protecting them), the hexes of land ownership are weakened and the 'thin grey layer' is 40 stories deep. I would like to direct attention to this 'thin grey layer' and ask, "What touchstones do people come up with to adjudicate whether a proposed law (in my fictional geometric world) genuinely prevents abuse rather than encompassing social control?"
jimjamesjames has come up with some ideas (below). What do other people think? How do we do a better job of defining the purpose and philosophical limitations of local law?
Jan
And also agree on the "pure, theoretical world" comment. Such constructs are useful in some academic areas, but this thread does seem to be about how things are actually decided in the real world.
[edit for typos and clarification]
So, does that mean that he can't play his music? Does it mean I have to listen to it anyway?
Governments and laws are designed for situations where you don't have mutual agreement.
His roommate couldn't take it and demanded a new room and was given one. No one wanted to room with Norman. He cheerfully told me that he had gotten a single.
The 'move' strategy essentially means that if a property owner is sufficiently noxious that no one wants to live near him he can probably get their land at a discount.
Property rights would imply, to me at least, the right to enjoy your property free from unreasonable interference from your neighbor.
Rand advocated for a government that enforced peoples's property rights. She indicated that it was important the the rules be objective and known. Not that there were no rules.
1. soundproof your house, so the loud music won't bother you.
2. tint your windows, so the sight of blood doesn't sicken you.
3. don't worry about the non-vaccinated individual; if there's an outbreak, he will suffer the consequences, not you, and if there's no outbreak, neither of you has lost anything.
The disease is something contagious for which there is no vaccine and has a 50% mortality rate.
Yes, I can ignore the rap - but why should I have to? Is it not my neighbor's responsibility to keep his music from eking over my property line?
Jan, not making it easy
Remember turn the other cheek is not plural.
Jan
Since almost any government action is an infringement on individual freedom, I would start there. Clearly there are government actions we need, arguably a military, basic laws to define the limits of individual actions infringing on other's freedoms (e.g. murder or rape), perhaps fire departments and police, etc.
My thought is the government should only take action when the monotonic optimization of capitalism will hit a local minima. For example, setting boiler pressure vessel codes to keep people from being killed in steam engine explosions, perhaps FAA-type regulations to keep planes safe, a highway system, perhaps space travel if one thinks there is an mission there, etc. These are things that could be done privately, but probably do not have a payback on the huge capital investment required in a manner fiscally possible by companies or revenue is too difficult to collect.
It seems to me the involvement of government should only be when a significant common good is desired/required AND a capitalist-driven interest will not provide it.
Loud music, or loud motorcycles is a good example. A person may like it, but exposing others to it that don't like it is a very much like the fist engaging the nose. Headphone work. I don't like them, so I play my loud progressive rock in the basement mancave, underground, where the nose does not travel. Seems like a dB level for public places or other people's private property is a reasonable limit on one's freedom not interfering with another's. I really hate rules, and loud motorcycles, however stupid, do not bother me. Load rap music does though (the only rap I like is "Two Tennis Shoes in a Dryer").
Refusing vaccinations is pretty dumb. Seems like those that do, should be ready for forced quarantine if they contract a controlled disease. That seems perfectly fair, and making their freedom a much more modest impact on everyone else's.
Eviscerating a goat is a good one. One could champion the goat, but that is another big philosophical dilemma. (I for one would, because I think humans are overwhelmingly arrogant in our opinions of genetic superiority and soul-nonsense). However, one might do so as part of a druid practice. Other than hearing the goat bleating (they bleat, right?), which could fall into the acoustic limit, it seems there is little to affect another other than a subtle knowledge of the going's on. This one is tougher. Similarly would be neighbors that engage in sex in their publicly-viewable yard. Perhaps these both should be addressed through social pressure (like the offenders are applying, rather than government intervention).
Such a good question. I have to keep thinking about this. Thank you.
Jan
I have no easy or set answer to these questions either...and the input I am reading on this thread is giving me a lot to consider.
Jan
Clearly animals for meat is not offensive in general. Sadism is. How that should be limited is hard. It requires a overwhelming collective belief that the practice is inappropriate, a belief I share. If I just knew my neighbor was doing this, but did not have sensory evidence, I might be inclined to simply ostracize him. Should we stop him by force (law) is a tough question.
That would also seem to cover child abuse, unless we don't count children as individuals until they reach a certain age.
You go back to the principles of Objectivism. At its base, Objectivism is not a pie-in-the-sky Utopian dream nor does it promise that. It is a philosophy based around the reality of the world in which one lives and tries to prosper while defending those rights that all men have. The ethics and the morals are really simple in that if one wishes for themselves the rights of a free individual, one must recognize those identical rights of others that they interact with.
Objectivism will not remove from your life all dangers inherent in living nor the petty nuisances of your neighbors. If you don't wish to hear the rap music, build a sound barrier fence, if you don't like goat evisceration, talk to your neighbor and offer to buy his goats from him, if you're deathly afraid of disease, hire someone to do your shopping for you. At the extreme end, you may move far enough away from your neighbors to eliminate all of those nuisances. It's your actions that are within your control--not the actions of others.
These likes or dislikes are your burden and responsibilities, not imposable by you on to others.
In the former case, the right of someone to 'have smallpox' can harm you - and everyone around you unless you live as a hermit and require double-packaging of every item you receive (since smallpox, for example, can survive 10 years in woolen cloth - hiring someone to do your shopping would not suffice). Society does not work well when one person's freedom to 'have smallpox' could destroy thousands of people. (The answer is not 'these thousands should have the vaccine' nor is it 'wild smallpox is eradicated'. I use this disease as an example of a class of activity we must consider in terms of a social structure. Term it "Martian Blue Death" if that makes more sense to you.)
In the case of vivisection* or child abuse, I strongly judge that a society that permitted these activities to occur unhindered would not be one I wanted to be a part of. *(The title "Goat Evisceration" was intended to imply sadistic vivisection without grossing people out.)
So I think that the 'thin grey layer' of law needs to exist, but it needs to be carefully thought out.
Jan
In a world, or society of humans based on rational and logical reasoning, I suspect or think that taking advantage of a small pox vaccine is something that the majority of people would do voluntarily. I know I've had four such applications, though none ever took. But it must ultimately be the individual's choice. That doesn't stop the rest refusing to have anything to do with that individual based on his choices and actions.
Child abuse is a bit of a ramping up, but I think that it falls well within the realm of the Objectivist ideal of what a proper government is for--to apply retributive and defensive force against those that initiate force against other humans. And even though I like some goats, my neighbors are free to do with their goats what they will. Our laws and rules have no business being applied against the entire animal kingdom or we're still EPAing.
However, there are also diseases that are almost universally deadly and highly communicable. Historically societies have used isolation to protect themselves. I don't think you can consider spreading them as legitimate personal choice. I think you do need public health laws.
Similarly deliberately exposing your neighbors to the threat of disease could be considered a form of indirect force.
Jan
Jan
.
Eventually, there is no where else to move and you have to figure out how to live in peace with your neighbor -- and have a government system for when that can't be done to mutual satisfaction.
and saw that the next word started with an s, so my
mind jumped to another oxymoron:::
government solution! . when the govt gets involved,
what was once a solution is now a problem! -- j
.
With regard to goats... It is now illegal in my county for Mexicans (or anyone) to slaughter goats, because the Mexicans apparently eat goats alive or something like that.
As a result there is apparently a cottage industry of catching people selling goats for slaughter, and prosecuting them for violation of the statues. The key part is that the supposed Mexican asks to be allowed to kill the goat on your property. If you say, "Yes," it's a gotcha.
Court systems evolved to determine these points:
1. Is there a debt?
2. Define the debt
3. Who is liable for the debt?
4. How much is the debt?
5. How and when will it be paid?
6. Who will insure payment of the debt?
Assuming an honest judge and procedure, the "debt" can be addressed by answering the above issues.
Jan
Of course, since we are talking about the Gulch, we get to decide the legal system to see what activities your neighbor can perform that will cause you actionable damage.
If enough people refuse vaccination and the disease spreads through the population, even some people who were vaccinated are at risk.
Diseases like Smallpox and Polio are special in that they only live in human beings. If you can vaccinate everyone they can be removed from the planet permanently. Smallpox has been, except for samples kept in laboratories (and possible biological weapons programs) and polio is almost wiped out. It is still endemic in Afghanistan, Nigeria and Pakistan.
Jan
I can see that keeping down the 'nanny state'. Of course we then wind up with micro-damages ($0.15 for playing classical music, $2.25 for rap?)
Taken to extreme we re-institute weregild and you can kill anyone who you can afford to pay for.
The general framework has been that by possibly having to recompense for proven damages, that would curb such behavior. Hence, making Rap really expensive makes sense!
BTW, what is weregild?
We still assess damages in the event of causing accidental death, but long ago stopped considering that sufficient for deliberate murder.
It does put limits on the concept of "actionable damage" since there are some actions we do not want to allow even if you are willing to pay damages.
The limits appear to define the threshold from civil damages to criminal damages.
Makes me appreciate the long history and struggle for rational civilization. And then contemplate how fast it can unravel (or be unraveled). Makes most of our current news cycles pretty scary. And it is also what makes Leonard Peikoff's book "The Ominous Parallels" such an essential read.
There are other categories to be considered: for example, what is the distinction between 'spanking your child' and 'beating your child'? When does society get to intervene?
Jan
Will a scorched leg from a hot cup of coffee always be worth $6,000,000? Our traditional system of arbitration in the common law court system generally held that individual cases with jury verdicts did not/do not set legal precedent. This leaves the parsing to repeated considerations of similar cases by locally picked juries of peers.
In light of this, when I hear of Compressional driven "reforms", I cringe in anticipation of more destruction of what has been a centuries proven legal system.
This may be an attempt to use civil law as a punishment for criminal cases. It tends to come up in situations such as product liability when it is financially beneficial to allow a flaw to remain in your product and simply pay for the damages.
Of course, from a societal point of view that might be the right answer. If the damage made by the flaw is less than the cost of fixing it, and the price of fixing it will be passed on, maybe it really is best to simply pay the damage.
Of course fraud is a different thing.
ried about getting infected, you can get vaccinated
yourself, and that ends the danger. Just because
you don't want to hear something is not a reason
to force someone else not to play it, or say it. (If, however, you can go into court and prove
that the volume of sound physically interferes with you, for instance by damaging your ear-
drums, that is another thing).
Jan
In my neck of the woods, that describes my situation here in Texas, although everyone has at least 10X 10 acres plus. However, there is an occasional obnoxious person who simply does not 'get it' regarding where his rights end. We are afterall, a group of people who migrated away from the likes of a "Baltimore" where we don't believe disagreements should be reacted with burning down unassociated business's so we can get freebies at the expense of others all in the name of "protest".
So getting back to our hypothetical situation where a neighbor violates anothers right to freedom.
In Texas, we have an enormous amount of peer pressure. Crude, but effective. If, for example, someone wants to blast ghetto music on our boundary line towards our houses, we would reply with something equally as obnoxious, as in Tex Ritter catterwalling broadcasted at several hundred decibels back at him.
No vaccinations, no problem. We would offer to help load the dudes groceries with chicken poop on our hands. The brave among us would pick our nose while doing so.
Eviserating goats is a tuffy for me. I truly love cabrito, but have Alpine dairy goats that are my personal pets, besides supplying my milk and cheese. But I do slaughter for the freezer an occasional one, but only the ugly ones, the ones my wife don't name. So as long as the neighbor leaves all my goats alone, and only has his way with his own goats, ain't none of my business.
Bottom line, with the limited government concept we so desire, we all deal with our interpersonal relationships "mano un mano". That runs the gamut from raising our children (It does NOT take a village) to dealing with debt, trespassers, and charity.
We don't need or want a distant govenrment telling us the safest way to wipe our butts, in other words.
YMMV
Jan
waytodude - It is important that you know that I do not 'have' answers to these things. My purpose in posting these quandaries is that I would like the capable and diverse minds on this list to examine some 'hard corner cases'...and see what we come up with.
So, yes, the question is that 'given that I know my neighbor is torturing goats' (or abusing babies or whatever despicable activity you would like to ascribe to some victim not capable of self-determination) what is the legal structure that we think appropriate to control this behavior (or not)?
Jan
Jan
When did that happen? So, you'll equate a jet plane flying overhead the same as trash dumped on your property? Do you include all sound, such as noise, birds, trash collectors, as well? So, you are saying that you want to limit your neighbor's freedom to listen to music in the manner he chooses, so you can be free to not hear it. As I see it, when it comes to freedom, with the exception of any form of coercion, it boils down to two things. The right to say no, and MYOB (Mind your own business).
But that is not my question: My question is how should this be handled. Your answer is quite straightforward (though I do not agree with it).
Jan
Jan
Let's take another case. I live next to you a stream runs through my property and then yours. Can I dam the stream and build a pond thereby cutting off your stream. It's my property and my stream?
In addition to a shared stream, we have shared air. Can I build burn old tires and have the noxious air cross your property. If I can, is there a limit to how many.
And, of course, back to the rock music, we share an auditory space with birds the babbling brook (unless I put up my dam). If I add heavy metal to the auditory space the sound doesn't stop at the border to my property either. What right do I have to put my music on your property?
Similarly, rather than some Gaia-worshipping bureaucrat telling an upstream paper mill that they cannot dump poisonous waste into the river that flows by because it "harms the Earth", it could have been (and should have been in the 1800's) properly forbidden, from doing so because it violates the rights of the users of the river downstream. Cleaning up the waste in producing the paper before discharging it into the river would be properly borne by the consumers of the paper, as part of its cost, which would probably be a negligible increase in paper cost.
Jan
There seems to be a number of commentators who believe that your right to land is absolute and that if someone doesn't like what you do with it, they can move.
The true test now as Objectivists is the rationality or reasonable of a law, whatever its roots. As far as a right to land being "absolute", it may not be as clear now in cities with small lots etc., but in Ye Olde England where tracts of land could be huge, is where (again, I'm no expert) I believe the perfectly reasonable concept of "right of way" originated. It may be your land, but you cannot bar someone from traversing it.
Once again, I was gone for a day...looks like a little work to do to get caught up, as this seems to be a very active and interesting thread.
Jan
One consequence is that you wouldn't like me. Well, maybe we are friends maybe not. We cannot build a rational society on the expectation that everyone will like each other.
It seems more reasonable to assume that you have a right to the water as well and that by putting up my dam I am depriving you of your property by force -- thereby initiating government activity to protect your right.
But we have to have a legal system that acknowledges that right in the first place.
"How I wonder when I wander....."
Those who require explanations should start by reading this book. http://daviddfriedman.com/laws_order/ind...
However, I am free to travel in my camper by just leaving. I know my home will be safe while I am away because it is in the high rise building.
I have the choice of exchanging one freedom (the umbrella) for another (keeping my home safe)
We have a case going on now, where "the city" is going to build a life guard tower in front of some homes on the water, destroying their view.
We will see how that turns out!!!
When the government does something for the "common good", watch out. That is when we lose our freedom! I'm fighting that as fast as I can.