The SOI is just a re-statement of the NAP. Actually, it's more strict, in reality. Defending someone's life, liberty, and property are things which anyone may do, governmental or not.
Hmmmm. I don't see it that way. To me, the the NAP is more concise and explicit. The SOI seems to suggest different things to different people.
A government can exist under an anarchic system. The two are not mutually-exclusive, the way that "State" and "anarchy" are.
So the SOI is restricting what such a government could do. An anarchic government could engage in charity, for example, but those who sign the SOI would have to be opposed to that (which I am - charity should be fully private and personal).
Well that's kind of my point. If sort-of-libertarians-but-not-quite stumble across the SOI and think it means "Cool! I'll move to town X and work to reduce taxes but make loud noises illegal, because loud noises annoy me", then the SOI is not effective in attracting the kind of people most of us want to join the FSP.
I don't think that's overly-likely to happen, personally. Some small percentage, maybe, but overall those who believe in liberty to the extent that they are willing to pull up roots and move to a new place in order to become activists are going to tend to be the sort who have thought these things out, and realize that they cannot justly legislate their personal preferences, because that's exactly what got us to the point that something like the FSP was important.
Heck, I'm a mixed-use area. I'd certainly like it if Saturday mornings were quieter around here, but I knew I was moving in near a repair shop when I bought this place, and unless I were willing to pay them to remain closed on Saturdays, I have no business complaining about the noise, let alone sending in thugs with guns. If I wanted to live in a place where things were quiet, I could have purchased a house in a residential area which was built with covenants requiring quiet.
Or, just the opposite - get the government to stay out of the landlord's/property owner's way to protect said liberty.
Before moving here I lived in an apartment building in New York City and during my last year there I was put through living hell by my neighbors. They had extremely loud parties every weekend (and often during the week) lasting at least until 6am. (The building had a "no noise after 10PM" rule. )The walls in my apartment were vibrating, not to mention my eardrums. It was affecting my health, my ability to work etc. etc. I'd call it a little more than an "aesthetic" problem.
I had countless discussions with the neighbors and with the property manager who agreed with me (especially after my neighbors caused thousands of dollars in property damage by breaking an elevator) but could do nothing about it. The government regulations kept him from breaking their lease and throwing them out of the building.
But I guess I shouldn't have objected to my neighbor's "right" to drive me insane either.
Your neighbors were violating a contract (lease agreement), and should have been out on the street.
There is no comparison between that and someone trying to use force on individuals who had never agreed to any such thing. As I've said before, if you want quiet, move someplace where quiet is required by the covenants that the property owners agreed to abide by. Legislating rules for others, who never agreed to them, is something completely different, and that's what the original poster is suggesting should be done.
Joe
