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