Heh, so true. I think we continually disagree about this point. It will suffice to say that rights don't magically spring from descriptive inquiries of dead moral philosophers either. The actual source is so debatable, that we won't agree on that in a single thread. Regardless, as I said before, one should be wary to use the term "property rights" because it's such a blanket term that doesn't identify the particular right being spoken about.
Property rights is not a blanket term, and the source of property rights is not debatable. All rights result from self-ownership, which is axiomatic - you cannot formulate an argument against self-ownership, without inherently admitting self-ownership in the process.
I can intentionally send powerfully disruptive sound waves onto your property that would crack your home's walls and damage your ear drums. Or I could transmit highly energetic photons (let's say... an x-ray emitter aimed at your house). Have these "ephemeral" things--sound waves and photons--entered your property? If we say "no" and maintain that those are merely the transfers of energy--and only physical things can actually trespass--we must also conclude that I could set a fire on my property to let "it" crossed onto your land, that would also NOT be trespass, because no physical thing is moving onto your property, just a self-perpetuating reaction that happens to emit light in the visible spectrum. Sounds a bit funny to think that might not be trespass.
That would be trespass, based upon it actually doing damage. Not the intent, but the actuality of it. If you never intended the fire to spread, but were negligent in failing to properly contain it, you would still be responsible.
Being "annoyed" by sound that travels through the air does not qualify as damage. I'm "annoyed" by the way some people dress, for that matter.
I'm glad that there is no consensus. It's natural for reasonable people to have different opinions. The best way to handle this is through local laws, so each person can live in a town that best fits his opinions.
MaineShark, I promise you that if I move to NH, I will oppose any state law that regulates noise. I hope that you can do the same for me and promise me that you would oppose any state law that would prevent towns from regulating noise.
Absolutely not. I will oppose any aggressive violence, regardless of how small-scale you want to make it. You do not have a right to attack others for offending your aesthetic sensibilities. If you want to live in a place that is quiet, you may obtain such a condition by the
unanimous consent of your neighbors. The minute you try to force others to obey your personal preferences against their will, you are an oppressor.
Joe