Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 11   Go Down

Author Topic: A few questions  (Read 50199 times)

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: A few questions
« Reply #30 on: June 11, 2008, 10:58:05 am »

My guess is that Joe and some others would prefer that the SOI were different; more explicit and more like the non-aggression principle.

I can't speak for others, but I actually like it the way it is.  It's simple and to the point, while allowing the minimum role of government to be open-ended.

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.

Indeed.  And hiring thugs to impose "noise ordinances" would be well in excess of the limits set up by the SOI.  Hence my comments :)

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

Fishercat

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 343
Re: A few questions
« Reply #31 on: June 11, 2008, 11:06:37 am »

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.

If any of those 538 have the audacity to consider debating the foundation of property rights, than the movement would be best served if they would remove their names from the list, and reduce the total count.   I'm sure we could get the number way down.  Less than 200 would be easy.   Some of the rest may hang on for a while, but I don't believe they are all really, truly and unreservedly commit to the goal.

But what do I know.  I doubt I'm pure enough to have an opinion.
Logged

margomaps

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 708
  • I'm a llama!
Re: A few questions
« Reply #32 on: June 11, 2008, 11:32:50 am »

I can't speak for others, but I actually like it the way it is.  It's simple and to the point, while allowing the minimum role of government to be open-ended.

I'm not convinced.  With how vociferously you defend self-ownership/property rights/non-aggression principle, it's hard to believe that you wouldn't prefer the SOI would read more like the NAP.

Quote
Indeed.  And hiring thugs to impose "noise ordinances" would be well in excess of the limits set up by the SOI.  Hence my comments :)

Nah, as we've seen in this very thread, some people might think that loud noises are a violation of their liberty, and they might want the government to interfere to protect said liberty.
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: A few questions
« Reply #33 on: June 11, 2008, 12:34:42 pm »

If any of those 538 have the audacity to consider debating the foundation of property rights, than the movement would be best served if they would remove their names from the list, and reduce the total count.   I'm sure we could get the number way down.  Less than 200 would be easy.   Some of the rest may hang on for a while, but I don't believe they are all really, truly and unreservedly commit to the goal.

There are more than 538 - the counter is not very accurate.

And I have yet to meet any of those who have moved, who do not understand that property rights result from self-ownership.  We're talking about libertarians, forcryingoutloud - people who are typically able to discuss why the Articles of Confederation were far superior to the oppressive monstrosity that is the Constitution.  Self-ownership is the basis of all libertarian thought.

I'm not convinced.  With how vociferously you defend self-ownership/property rights/non-aggression principle, it's hard to believe that you wouldn't prefer the SOI would read more like the NAP.

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.

Nah, as we've seen in this very thread, some people might think that loud noises are a violation of their liberty, and they might want the government to interfere to protect said liberty.

Some individuals think that.  I haven't met any actual libertarians who think that.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

margomaps

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 708
  • I'm a llama!
Re: A few questions
« Reply #34 on: June 11, 2008, 12:44:45 pm »

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.

Quote
Some individuals think that.  I haven't met any actual libertarians who think that.

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.
Logged

Cat Herder

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 29
Re: A few questions
« Reply #35 on: June 11, 2008, 12:51:28 pm »

Quote
Nah, as we've seen in this very thread, some people might think that loud noises are a violation of their liberty, and they might want the government to interfere to protect said liberty.

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.

Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: A few questions
« Reply #36 on: June 11, 2008, 12:56:40 pm »

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
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

Fishercat

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 343
Re: A few questions
« Reply #37 on: June 11, 2008, 01:02:44 pm »

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.

Loud noises are already illegal in many towns in New Hampshire.   So the SOI might attract the kind of person who will say, "Cool!  I will move to town X and work to reduce taxes.   But... I don't mind that town X has a noise ordinance, so I'm not really going to work to get rid of that." 

Are you seriously saying this person is a "jackboot" that should be... wait, just what are we going to do with jackboots again?

Let's be practical for a second.  10,000 people per year are moving to NH (give or take, I made that up).   Do you really think your energy is best spent trying to discourage a handful sort-of-libertarians-but-not-quite because they don't like barking dogs? 
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: A few questions
« Reply #38 on: June 11, 2008, 01:25:24 pm »

Loud noises are already illegal in many towns in New Hampshire.   So the SOI might attract the kind of person who will say, "Cool!  I will move to town X and work to reduce taxes.   But... I don't mind that town X has a noise ordinance, so I'm not really going to work to get rid of that." 

Are you seriously saying this person is a "jackboot" that should be... wait, just what are we going to do with jackboots again?

They don't have to work to get rid of it.  But they can't get in the way of others doing so, or work to institute noise ordinances in towns that do not already have them, or to increase the scope of existing ordinances.

Let's be practical for a second.  10,000 people per year are moving to NH (give or take, I made that up).   Do you really think your energy is best spent trying to discourage a handful sort-of-libertarians-but-not-quite because they don't like barking dogs?

Yes.  You aren't held accountable by society for the actions of your enemies, but you are often taken to task for the actions of your friends.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

Fishercat

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 343
Re: A few questions
« Reply #39 on: June 11, 2008, 02:28:58 pm »

It's a shame I've already "made the move."   Because I think you just convinced me not to join.
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: A few questions
« Reply #40 on: June 11, 2008, 02:30:20 pm »

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.

"Property rights" is a blanket term. You can say, "I have a property right in my car." But it doesn't tell you anything more about the relationship between you and the car--except that there is one. Do you have full title to the car? Or may you only use the car? Or perhaps you're merely possessing the car for a day or two. Do you rent it out and receive proceeds? Do you have a security interest in the car? --Or perhaps you have sold the design to the car? We don't know--because the phrase "property right" doesn't tell us much of anything.

The source of property rights isn't debatable? People have been doing it for thousands of years. And we're doing it right now. On this very thread!

Appealing to higher authorities, I see it's claimed we should accept certain axioms about the source of rights. But there's nothing self-evident about it that means we should accept it. It's a fairly major consequence to even elevate to being "axiomatic". As if it were as rigorous as the Zermelo-Frankel axioms--when it's really just an assertion of belief. Accepted by some; rejected by others. I can't accept it because it's not reduced to a more primitive set of axioms. If "self-ownership" and "rights" are to be defined terms themselves, any relationship between them will be based upon how they're defined. By definition, I can't call it axiomatic.

But, really, if we're all going with the "no-true-libertarian", "these-axioms-are-really-really-true", "you-can't-debate-it", and "anything-not-in-agreement-with-my-view-must-be-against-it" routes, then this is just degenerating into religious fervor. If that's the case, we literally can't debate at all.

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.

Regardless of the interesting analysis on trespass and negligence, you seem to say that if their is actual damage, then there's a trespass. While I disagree with the inference that damage alone proves trespass, I'm glad we agree that sound can be trespassory. Sound over 85 dB will cause hearing loss; over 120 dB and you'll get immediate damage. Sound can also shake walls and break things. Therefore, sound can damage you and your property. And, according to your previous post, that damage is enough to be a trespass. And hold the producer of the sound responsible. I can't recall if anyone has speaking of merely being annoyed. (I don't think I did...) We're talking about serious interference with use of your property and harm to your person.
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: A few questions
« Reply #41 on: June 11, 2008, 02:37:23 pm »

It's a shame I've already "made the move."   Because I think you just convinced me not to join.

Have fun with that.  We don't have checkpoints at the border to keep folks in...

The source of property rights isn't debatable? People have been doing it for thousands of years. And we're doing it right now. On this very thread!

No, debate involves logic, not merely, "this annoys me so it must be wrong."

Appealing to higher authorities, I see it's claimed we should accept certain axioms about the source of rights. But there's nothing self-evident about it that means we should accept it.

You cannot phrase an opposition to self-ownership without admitting self-ownership.  Ergo, it is axiomatic.

You're welcome to try, but folks have been trying for a long time, and I don't think you're going to be the one to succeed...

Regardless of the interesting analysis on trespass and negligence, you seem to say that if their is actual damage, then there's a trespass. While I disagree with the inference that damage alone proves trespass, I'm glad we agree that sound can be trespassory. Sound over 85 dB will cause hearing loss; over 120 dB and you'll get immediate damage. Sound can also shake walls and break things. Therefore, sound can damage you and your property. And, according to your previous post, that damage is enough to be a trespass. And hold the producer of the sound responsible. I can't recall if anyone has speaking of merely being annoyed. (I don't think I did...) We're talking about serious interference with use of your property and harm to your person.

Yes, the original poster was speaking specifically of being annoyed by loud music and barking dogs.  We're not talking about sound as a source of physical damage.  Just sound as a source of annoyance.  Sound at damaging levels would be assault, and there would be no need for a separate "noise ordinance."

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

fschmidt

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
Re: A few questions
« Reply #42 on: June 11, 2008, 02:45:26 pm »

I posted a poll on the noise question here:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15370

Please vote so I can get a better idea of where Free Staters generally stand on this issue.
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: A few questions
« Reply #43 on: June 11, 2008, 02:50:36 pm »

Please vote so I can get a better idea of where Free Staters generally stand on this issue.

Actually, very few Freestaters actually visit here all that often.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

margomaps

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 708
  • I'm a llama!
Re: A few questions
« Reply #44 on: June 11, 2008, 03:30:07 pm »

Loud noises are already illegal in many towns in New Hampshire.   So the SOI might attract the kind of person who will say, "Cool!  I will move to town X and work to reduce taxes.   But... I don't mind that town X has a noise ordinance, so I'm not really going to work to get rid of that."

Quote
Are you seriously saying this person is a "jackboot" that should be... wait, just what are we going to do with jackboots again?

I'm not seriously -- nor jokingly -- saying any such thing.  With all due respect, what the @#%! are you talking about?   ;D  Did I mention anything about a "jackboot"?  I think you have me confused with somebody else.  Seriously.

Quote
Let's be practical for a second.  10,000 people per year are moving to NH (give or take, I made that up).   Do you really think your energy is best spent trying to discourage a handful sort-of-libertarians-but-not-quite because they don't like barking dogs?

I'm really at a loss to understand where you're coming from here.  Please point to where I've spent energy trying to discourage a sort-of-libertarian from moving to NH.  Are you just looking to pick a fight?  Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed?  You have me totally nonplussed here.

I (rightfully, IMO) pointed out that someone's feelings on a particular matter might mean that the SOI isn't for them.  And I (truthfully, IMO) mentioned that there are probably FSPers who wouldn't welcome someone with those beliefs.  I'm pretty sure Joe's unequivocal non-welcome as stated on this thread is evidence of the veracity of that claim.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 11   Go Up