fagin@JI.BERKELEY.EDU (Barry S. Fagin) (03/23/87)
Russell Nelson recently posted a message regarding libertarians and zoning, describing a situation that existed between him and his neighbor not to his liking. He then asks what a libertarian would do in similar circumstances. Since I am a libertarian in similar circumstances, I thought it appropriate to reply. Russell writes: > [A house next door] has apparently been vacant for twice the four > years that we have lived here. The chimney is falling down, the > paint is peeling, and the grass is so overgrown that it comes up > to my waist. There is no electrical power, no phone lines; a tree > brought them down five years ago. In fact, the house next door to mine has peeling paint, a backyard completely overgrown with weeds, a decrepit fence, and a roof that is falling apart, shedding shingles on my driveway on windy days. > The house looks like crap ... so does this one ... > My wealth is being stolen by my neighbor. This is completely and utterly false, although most people in similar circumstances share this view. Having an asset of yours decline in value is not the same as having wealth stolen from you, although both leave you worse off financially. Suppose you buy stock in company A, and a month later competing company B announces a new product better and cheaper to that of company A. Your stock declines in value. Has wealth been stolen from you? Suppose your neighbor were to fix up his house, but then prominently displayed the following sign on his front lawn: FAN THE FLAMES OF REVOLUTION AROUND THE WORLD! SUPPORT THE COMMUNIST WORKERS' PARTY! Suppose further that he flew a hammer and sickle flag from a flagpole out front. This might lower your property values considerably. Has your neighbor stolen from you? Should he somehow be impeded from expressing his views? I think not. The point is that in any society with private property, people exercising their freedom of choice in disposing of what they own will inevitably affect the economic well being of others. To call that stealing is complete and utter nonsense. > My house has a decidedly lower value because of the (non-)efforts > of my neighbor. My situation, exactly. It does not follow from this that my neighbor should be forced to fix up her house to make my house worth more. She is a free human being, who may treat her property in any way she wishes. And of course, she may not have the resources to improve her home, although I doubt this to be the case. > Would I, were I a Libertarian: > o Burn the house down (the inside, I am told, is as bad as the > outside)? Of course not. The wrongness of destruction of property is something everyone can agree on. My guess is that this suggestion was in jest. > o Get together a neighborhood work crew and trim the shrubs, paint > the house, etc? I have thought of this, but at this point I wish to employ my efforts toward other goals that are more important to me. This may change once I get my degree, if my wife and I decide not to move. > o Jump up and down and yell and scream about having the existing > laws enforced? I do not think there are any such laws here in Oakland, and if there were I wouldn't think of demanding that they be enforced. Nor would I turn in a draft registration evader, a drug user, an insider trader, or a Berkeley landlord who charged more than the legal rent. > o Grin and bear it? This is in fact what I do. It never ceases to amaze me how often libertarians are referred to as "self-centered". It is precisely because I know that I am not the only person in the world, that the improvement of my financial well-being is not of paramount importance to a just society, and that other people have different goals than I do that I do not unequivocally support laws that benefit me. A sense of tolerance and an understanding of how free societies work demands that I do just that. --Barry
bh01@CLUTX.BITNET (Russell Nelson) (03/23/87)
Barry Fagin writes that disposing of private property inevitably affects others. I think that Barry's example is slightly different from mine because the house next to me is vacant. I was not totally joking when I proposed burning the house down. There is sufficient spacing between houses that no danger to any neighbors would result. Believe me, I have planned this very well in my fantasies... But seriously, the only practical options are to grin and bear it, fix it up myself, or wait for the old buzzard to die. Back to poli-sci... I think that this culture, that is, North American, has generally agreed that a neighborhood should generally have houses of equal worth. Since libertarianism denies this, I expect that libertarianism is and shall remain, a theoretical concept only. Perhaps we should move the main topic of this list away from libertarianism to something a little bit more practical. Then again, perhaps we're staying away from emotion-arousing discussions to reduce the traffic in this newsgroup. I would rather discuss political systems that have a ghosts chance of being adopted, even if it means more flames. I'll be thinking about it, after checking the halogen cannister to be sure that it's full. :-)