Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[rossby]

Noise does not violate your property rights, and is not trespassing.  You don't have a "right" to quiet, unless you contract with your neighbors to promise such to each other.

No one has a right to absolute quiet. The recognized right is "quiet enjoyment" of your property. That other people's uses of their property should not unduly interfere with your use of your property. Sound, light, noxious odors, soot deposited upon your property from smokestacks... these can all be trespassory. Trespass and nuisance are both ancient and intimately related. It's a really a very fascinating subject--how various societies deal with this!

[MaineShark]

No one has a right to absolute quiet. The recognized right is "quiet enjoyment" of your property. That other people's uses of their property should not unduly interfere with your use of your property. Sound, light, noxious odors, soot deposited upon your property from smokestacks... these can all be trespassory. Trespass and nuisance are both ancient and intimately related. It's a really a very fascinating subject--how various societies deal with this!

Authoritarian jackboots have long used such excuses to interfere with property rights.  That does not make "quiet enjoyment" an actual right.  It has no basis in moral philosophy, and rights don't just spring out of thing air because you want them to.

Chemicals (soot, etc.) are different from sound, in that they involve an actual trespass.  You can't discharge waste onto my property.

Joe

[Fishercat]

No one has a right to absolute quiet. The recognized right is "quiet enjoyment" of your property. That other people's uses of their property should not unduly interfere with your use of your property. Sound, light, noxious odors, soot deposited upon your property from smokestacks... these can all be trespassory. Trespass and nuisance are both ancient and intimately related. It's a really a very fascinating subject--how various societies deal with this!

Authoritarian jackboots have long used such excuses to interfere with property rights.  That does not make "quiet enjoyment" an actual right.  It has no basis in moral philosophy, and rights don't just spring out of thing air because you want them to.

Chemicals (soot, etc.) are different from sound, in that they involve an actual trespass.  You can't discharge waste onto my property.

Joe

Fschmidt - this should answer your questions about "consensus."   

[Dave Mincin]

I lived in Dover for three years.  Great llittle downtown.   Shops, restaurants, bars, movie, laundry mat, and a great little
super market, with its own butcher shop.  Pretty much all you need if you prefer walking. Lots of UNH students too,
if you are so inclined.

Portsmouth has at least 11 porcs, and more due this summer.

[rossby]

No one has a right to absolute quiet. The recognized right is "quiet enjoyment" of your property. That other people's uses of their property should not unduly interfere with your use of your property. Sound, light, noxious odors, soot deposited upon your property from smokestacks... these can all be trespassory. Trespass and nuisance are both ancient and intimately related. It's a really a very fascinating subject--how various societies deal with this!

Authoritarian jackboots have long used such excuses to interfere with property rights.  That does not make "quiet enjoyment" an actual right.  It has no basis in moral philosophy, and rights don't just spring out of thing air because you want them to.

Chemicals (soot, etc.) are different from sound, in that they involve an actual trespass.  You can't discharge waste onto my property.

Joe

Fschmidt - this should answer your questions about "consensus."   

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.

The distinction drawn above was exactly the problem early judges had (and I mean judges in the general sense, not just English judges). A cow is a large physical object and anyone can clearly observe a trespass. Light and sounds are more ephemeral and were less understood. Yet, there was still something about them that interfered with a property owner's right to exclude. With some terribly abbreviated handwaving, that's how we came to call it quiet enjoyment and nuisance instead of trespass upon land. We know sound is mechanical and light is electromagnetic (and technically, they're both electromagnetic... *cough*). 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. And many communities would agree. It's not only the physical act but the intent of the moral actor at the core of the action.

Is it the general consensus of FSP people that people have the right to blast noise onto their neighbor's property?  If this is a debated issue, then I would prefer to live near FSP people who agree with me on this.  But if the consensus is against me, then I probably don't belong.

Consensus?! HA! Welcome to the lack of it!

[fschmidt]

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.

This July I will look at New Hampshire, Xalapa Mexico, and Uruguay as possible places to live.  Mexico and Uruguay have far more individual freedom than America does.  The main negative of these places is that they do not regulate noise.

In NH, I will look at Portsmouth, Manchester, and Concord.  I would prefer not living in a college town, which rules out Dover and Keene.  Does anyone know why Portsmouth is so much more expensive than other NH towns?  Any other comments about these towns, particularly regarding noise (music and barking dogs) and walkability?  Thanks.

[MaineShark]

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

[maeqFREEDOMfree]

O.P. When you move, please post your town. sometimes i can be loud and I have a tendency to squeeze random people's noses. I would never want to encroach on your pursuit of happiness; so due to my freakish urges, i'll be sure to move at least a town away.

[John Edward Mercier]

The LOUD I can deal with... the nose squeezing might be a problem.

[John Edward Mercier]

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.

This July I will look at New Hampshire, Xalapa Mexico, and Uruguay as possible places to live.  Mexico and Uruguay have far more individual freedom than America does.  The main negative of these places is that they do not regulate noise.

In NH, I will look at Portsmouth, Manchester, and Concord.  I would prefer not living in a college town, which rules out Dover and Keene.  Does anyone know why Portsmouth is so much more expensive than other NH towns?  Any other comments about these towns, particularly regarding noise (music and barking dogs) and walkability?  Thanks.

Probably because Portsmouth has higher income levels due to its geographical location.

[Fishercat]

Property rights is not a blanket term, and the source of property rights is not debatable. 

So anyone who thinks this open to debate should not be eligible to join the Free State Project?   Or quit, if they have already signed up? 

Just checking.

[MaineShark]

Property rights is not a blanket term, and the source of property rights is not debatable.

So anyone who thinks this open to debate should not be eligible to join the Free State Project?   Or quit, if they have already signed up? 

Just checking.

Given that such rights are axiomatic, they are literally not debatable - trying to debate them is illogical.  I'd prefer if rational people moved here, rather than irrational looters who believe that the world is a free-for-all where no one has any real rights.  We have enough of those, already - that sort of belief is the problem we are trying to solve here in NH.

Whether or not someone can do some level of good before running up against that sort of wall is debatable.  Someone (eg Ron Paul) might do some good, even being far from "pure," but when it comes to someone who thinks that calling in thugs with guns because of a barking dog is acceptable, no, I don't want someone like that moving here.

Joe

[Fishercat]

The new Free State Project goal.   Reduce the number of participants to 10 or less by the end of 2009!

That should be a lot easier to achieve than that silly 20,000 number.  Count me in.

[MaineShark]

The new Free State Project goal.   Reduce the number of participants to 10 or less by the end of 2009!

That should be a lot easier to achieve than that silly 20,000 number.  Count me in.

The 20,000 number is silly.  It's an order of magnitude too high, by most estimates based upon what we've actually achieved in the actual Free State using actual people who have actually moved.  We've made serious advances with 1/40 of that number.  Because we are actual activists who actually care about liberty.

Those who want a nanny state where thugs with guns attack their neighbors to enforce their every whim should just stay where they are, because they are the problem that we are trying to solve here.

Getting people to sign up is not the goal.  Enhancing and maintaining freedom is.  Sign-ups are a helpful means to that end, but only when those who are signing up actually believe in the goal.

And the number of participants can't really go below 500-1000, anyway, because that's how many have already moved.  Within the next year or two, we should be at the actual number that we actually need in order to make this work.  More movers beyond that would be icing on the cake, and would help us somewhat, but if they are not actually committed to the goal, it I don't want them.

Joe

[margomaps]

Property rights is not a blanket term, and the source of property rights is not debatable. 

So anyone who thinks this open to debate should not be eligible to join the Free State Project?   Or quit, if they have already signed up? 

Just checking.

If you really, honestly think carefully and logically about what freedom means, I find it hard to imagine that you'll come to a conclusion that's much different than Joe's never-ending treatise (   ) on self-ownership/property rights.

However, having said that...don't forget that Joe is just one person in the FSP expressing his opinion.  His opinion -- or at least similar variations on the theme -- are probably held by a large percentage of porcs.  But not everyone sees the world in such stark terms, and not everyone ends up at exactly the same conclusion about all issues related to liberty.  Joe does not speak for the FSP; nobody does.  The SOI is the only thing that contractually connects us, really.  If you value freedom, and believe the maximum role of the government is to protect life, liberty, and property; and if you pledge to work toward that ideal, then the FSP is right for you.

Reasonable people can and will disagree on the exact meaning of the SOI, but for all intents and purposes it's good enough to largely get the intended audience of freedom fighters moving to NH.  My guess is that Joe and some others would prefer that the SOI were different; more explicit and more like the non-aggression principle.  But it isn't.  So those who believe they agree with the SOI are welcome to join the FSP.  Those who say they want the government to do more than what the SOI indicates should not sign the pledge, and should not necessarily expect to be welcomed by many FSPers.