[net.politics.theory] Day to day life in Libertaria

bmg@mck-csc.UUCP (Bernard M. Gunther) (10/03/85)

I have been listening the discussions regarding Libertaria and am getting
a good understanding of how the large events would happen, but I have 
a question regarding day to day life.  I would be very interested in
finding out the 'proper' responses to the following situation in Libertaria
(and other forms of society).

2 people, A and B, own property directly next to each other.  Person A
likes to play his stereo late at night to the repeated annoyance of person B.
What would be the correct responce for person B?  

For the purposes of this question, please assume a world in which your
favorite philosophy was the dominant one.

Bernie Gunther
mit-eddie!mck-csc!bmg

laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (10/07/85)

In article <139@mck-csc.UUCP> bmg@mck-csc.UUCP (Bernard M. Gunther) writes:
>
>2 people, A and B, own property directly next to each other.  Person A
>likes to play his stereo late at night to the repeated annoyance of person B.
>What would be the correct responce for person B?  
>

The first thing that B does is to tell A that B is annoyed.  This may fix
the problem as A may not know that he is bothering anyone. However, I am
going to assume that A tells B to take a hike. A now goes home and has a
lot to consider.

This is true *whatever* system you are using.  However, I am going to
continue assuming a very decentallised libertaria where the basic until of
geographical government is a neighbourhood.  Every neighbourhood has its
own collection of laws (though ideally no neighbourhood has very many
laws).  There are some laws (like those allowing emmigration from a
neighbourhood, and those against murder and assault) which are common to all
neighbourhoods.

So, B goes home and looks at the neighbourhood rule list. He also looks at
his lease and gets a copy of A's lease as well and reads this. If they are
both renting from the same condo company, then this will be easier than
if he has to get it through public records. In any case, the lease or
the neighbourhood may have a list of strange rules (no playing your stereo
at night, no using the Jaccusi without clothes, no pets) and if what B 
objects to is on the list and A has signed his lease agreeing to this, then
B has a case agaisnt A. B should do whatever the lease specifies one does to 
transgressors of these rules. If this rule did not make the list B may
be out of luck.  However, there will be a way to make new rules inherant
in the organisation of a neighbourhood.  B may want to address his grievance
this way. However, making a case that there needs to be a law against ``playing
stereos at night'' is going to be a tough one.  B's real problem was that
he did not forsee this possibility when he bought his place in the first place.
Perhaps he has a claim that the person who sold him this house mislead him.
(``That empty lot beside you is going to be a neighbourhood park. I guarantee
that it will never be developed in your lifetime!''). If B can make a new
neighbourhood rule against playing stereos at night, B and all those who
also supported this bill are going to owe a lot of compensation to A and those
who moved into the neighbourhood under the understanding that they are going
to be allowed to play their stereo. 

Can B claim that A is doing this to harrass B? Or that his stereo is
damaging B's health (if B can, I think that it is the person who
designed B's dwelling that has produced an inferior house and is at the
root of this problem).  Probably not, and so B cannot claim that A is
coercing B, merely that he is making his life inconvenient. Of course,
if B cannot sleep and thus cannot work, he  may have a strong case here.

B now has learned a valuable lesson about what sort of property B should
buy in the future -- B wants to buy places that either are far away from
other places or which are organised into a neighbourhood which has
an agreement which prohibits loud stereo-playing at night.

B may have to move to meet these criteria, however.


-- 
Laura Creighton		(note new address!)
sun!l5!laura		(that is ell-five, not fifteen)
l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa

radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) (10/07/85)

> 2 people, A and B, own property directly next to each other.  Person A
> likes to play his stereo late at night to the repeated annoyance of person B.
> What would be the correct responce for person B?  
> 
> For the purposes of this question, please assume a world in which your
> favorite philosophy was the dominant one.
> 
> Bernie Gunther
> mit-eddie!mck-csc!bmg

By my variety of libertarianism:

One owns rights, not things.

It is very convenient to own these rights in packages associated with objects.
For instance, owning the right to drive car A forward and car B in reverse,
but not car A backward and B forward would be pretty useless. Hence the 
usual notion of property as physical objects. But this is not the general
case.

So the question comes down to:

    Does person A own the right to produce loud noises at night on "his"
    land (or more exactly, neighboring land)?

If he does, fine. If not, those who own a right to silence can complain.

Lets assume that at one time all the land in the neighborhood was owned
(completely, all rights) by a developer, who subdivided it into lots which
were individually sold. Presumably the developer could decide which rights
get sold (or establish a mechanism which buyers agree to abide by for deciding
which rights residents have). There are obvious possible motives for not
selling all the rights, given that he guarantees a consistent scheme to all
buyers.

Assuming that problems like this really are significant, one can imagine a
structure resembling a municipal government, complete with zoning laws, 
emerging. The difference from present governments would be that "laws" are
the result of voluntary contracts, not political power. Note that I'm not
saying this structure would really arise - maybe social pressure is sufficient
to stop loud music without a bureaucracy, or maybe there's a better way which
the market would discover. But the market could solve the problem this way
it there is nothing better.

    Radford Neal

friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (10/10/85)

In article <437@calgary.UUCP> radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) writes:
>
>By my variety of libertarianism:
>
>One owns rights, not things.
>
>It is very convenient to own these rights in packages associated with objects.
>For instance, owning the right to drive car A forward and car B in reverse,
>but not car A backward and B forward would be pretty useless. Hence the 
>usual notion of property as physical objects. But this is not the general
>case.
>
	.
	.
	.
>
>Lets assume that at one time all the land in the neighborhood was owned
>(completely, all rights) by a developer, who subdivided it into lots which
>were individually sold. Presumably the developer could decide which rights
>get sold (or establish a mechanism which buyers agree to abide by for deciding
>which rights residents have). There are obvious possible motives for not
>selling all the rights, given that he guarantees a consistent scheme to all
>buyers.
>
	This sounds an awful lot like feudalism, in which recieved
rights in some productive resource are sublet to contrators in return
for value(services) recieved/rendered.

>Assuming that problems like this really are significant, one can imagine a
>structure resembling a municipal government, complete with zoning laws, 
>emerging. The difference from present governments would be that "laws" are
>the result of voluntary contracts, not political power.
> or maybe there's a better way which
>the market would discover. But the market could solve the problem this way
>it there is nothing better.
>
	Well, not exactly a voluntary contract, the original developer
has essentially a buyers market and can dictate terms of the contract.
(i.e buy under my terms or not at all). In fact the developer would
become the defacto government of the area by setting up the rules, and
by providing mechanisms for thier enforcement. Again very much like
feudalism, or like the private local communities that already exist
here in the US.(I saw an advertisement for one on TV the other day).
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa

wjr@x.UUCP (Bill Richard) (10/15/85)

<cochlea-blasters>

Note:  This is STella Calvert, still a guest on this account.

In article <139@mck-csc.UUCP> bmg@mck-csc.UUCP (Bernard M. Gunther) writes:
>2 people, A and B, own property directly next to each other.  Person A
>likes to play his stereo late at night to the repeated annoyance of person B.
>What would be the correct responce for person B?  
>
First Try:

<knock knock knock>

	Hi, my name's STella.  I live next door.  I'd rather come to your
party than lie home trying to sleep.  Can I come in?

This has usually worked for me.  If a neighbor considers I'm spending too much
time at their house, they usually turn it down.  Even if he says "No, my
girlfriend's over", the volume usually drops.  It works like a noise complaint
without the grouchiness.  And I've been to some good parties.

Of course, sometimes I'd rather sleep....

However, assume that I don't want it mouse-quiet all the time, and don't mind
occasional noise (after all, I am noisy sometimes, and invite the nabes to the
party, especially if I think it'll be late or loud.)

Second Try:  (after Noisy has refused to stifle)

Post to:  Neighborhood Bugs
Re:  John Loud, 126 Burnam St.

People:  I have asked my neighbor, John Loud, to turn down his stereo late at
night.  He has refused.  Any suggestions?  Any friends of his that can
arbitrate?  Anybody want to trade houses?

Third Try:  (after Noisy Loud has told his neighbors to mind his own business)

			Neighborhood Arbitrators and Small Claims Court
			776 Jefferson Lane
			Whatsit, Massachusetts

Mr. John Loud
126 Burnam St.
Whatsit, Massachusetts

Dear Mr. Loud:

A number of your neighbors have posted bond and filed charges claiming that
you habitually play your sound system at a level that can be heard for a
quarter mile.  We are willing to act as arbitrators in this matter.  However,
if you feel that we are biased, we will be glad to transfer the case to an
arbitration service of your choice, subject to the approval of the other 
party.

However, if we have not heard from you within a month, we will assume that you
have no objection to our participation, and will contact you to arrange a date
for the hearing.  

			Sincerely,

			Lucille Kropotkin

What sanctions can the arbitrator impose?  In the same way that a credit check
can interfere with the granting of a loan, a neighborhood check might well
interfere with Mr. Loud's future attempt to move into a different 
neighborhood.

And if he was obnoxious enough, it might be difficult to find a babysitter,
hire a maid, or get someone to cut his grass.  At least from within the range
of the neighborhood net.  If he won't respect his neighbors' rights to peace
and quiet, how can I know he will respect his contract to pay me for walking
his dogs?

These don't seem like serious sanctions, but think -- the neighborhood will be
much more important in libertaria, and people will very likely move in search
of a more congenial environment.  Having a pointer to some people who think
you aren't fit to live with on the public information utilities might make it
harder for you to get into the neighborhood you want.

And if you are my neighbor, and make me crazy enough, I will hire a sound
engineer to return your noise to you, amplified and out of phase.  That's 
expensive enough that I'd try the personal approach and mediation first.  And
probably, if I did resort to the high dB approach, your other neighbors would
be ready to assist.

Admittedly, I can see people refusing to turn it down even so, but here and now in the United Statists, I can hear them!

				STella Calvert
				(guest on ...!decvax!frog!wjr)

		Every man and every woman is a star.

radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) (10/16/85)

> >Lets assume that at one time all the land in the neighborhood was owned
> >(completely, all rights) by a developer, who subdivided it into lots which
> >were individually sold. Presumably the developer could decide which rights
> >get sold (or establish a mechanism which buyers agree to abide by for deciding
> >which rights residents have). There are obvious possible motives for not
> >selling all the rights, given that he guarantees a consistent scheme to all
> >buyers.
> >
> 	This sounds an awful lot like feudalism, in which recieved
> rights in some productive resource are sublet to contrators in return
> for value(services) recieved/rendered.
> 
> >Assuming that problems like this really are significant, one can imagine a
> >structure resembling a municipal government, complete with zoning laws, 
> >emerging. The difference from present governments would be that "laws" are
> >the result of voluntary contracts, not political power.
> > or maybe there's a better way which
> >the market would discover. But the market could solve the problem this way
> >it there is nothing better.
> >
> 	Well, not exactly a voluntary contract, the original developer
> has essentially a buyers market and can dictate terms of the contract.
> (i.e buy under my terms or not at all). In fact the developer would
> become the defacto government of the area by setting up the rules, and
> by providing mechanisms for thier enforcement. Again very much like
> feudalism, or like the private local communities that already exist
> here in the US.(I saw an advertisement for one on TV the other day).
> -- 
> 
> 				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

One could indeed imagine a feudal setup emerging from this. That this is 
possible is a point in favour of my scheme. Any framework for organizing 
society should be able to accomodate diversity - if people like the sort
of security and predictability that comes fromm a feudal community, they
should be able to join one.

One could also imagine a democratic setup, in which everyone agrees to
abide by the majority choice among some set of options.

The contracts WOULD be voluntary as long as no one had a monopoly of natural
resources (in this case land). The question of ownership of uncreated (by
man at least) objects is a complex one on which libertarians disagree. I 
don't propose to get into it here.

Once again, I don't necessarily think the above solution is desirable - it's
just a way in which the market *might* lead to a situation much like the 
present if no better setup is discovered.

     Radford Neal

franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (10/23/85)

In article <788@psivax.UUCP> friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>In article <437@calgary.UUCP> radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) writes:
>>Lets assume that at one time all the land in the neighborhood was owned
>>(completely, all rights) by a developer, who subdivided it into lots which
>>were individually sold. Presumably the developer could decide which rights
>>get sold (or establish a mechanism which buyers agree to abide by for
>>deciding
>>which rights residents have). There are obvious possible motives for not
>>selling all the rights, given that he guarantees a consistent scheme to all
>>buyers.
>>
>	This sounds an awful lot like feudalism, in which recieved
>rights in some productive resource are sublet to contrators in return
>for value(services) recieved/rendered.

Actually, something much like this happened in many places in the U.S.
A great many sales contracts for homes had clauses forbidding their sale
to blacks.  (And requiring that the same condition be applied to any
subsequent purchasers.)

Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108