Thank you for your interesting contributions to it.

Jan

I think that throwing sound over a property line is not different from throwing noxious fumes over a property line which is not different than throwing trash over a property line. I think that noise, fumes, and trash are all OK within the property upon which they were created but that when these real objects come onto someone else's land they are legitimately the problem of the originator, not that of the neighbor.

Jan

Definitely I believe that "common law" should be codified, and when I said I believed it evolved "rationally", I believe a significant amount of our current codified law started with common law.

The true test now as Objectivists is the rationality or reasonable of a law, whatever its roots. As far as a right to land being "absolute", it may not be as clear now in cities with small lots etc., but in Ye Olde England where tracts of land could be huge, is where (again, I'm no expert) I believe the perfectly reasonable concept of "right of way" originated. It may be your land, but you cannot bar someone from traversing it.

Once again, I was gone for a day...looks like a little work to do to get caught up, as this seems to be a very active and interesting thread.

The "butterfly effect" is nonsense. If you're wor-
ried about getting infected, you can get vaccinated
yourself, and that ends the danger. Just because
you don't want to hear something is not a reason
to force someone else not to play it, or say it. (If, however, you can go into court and prove
that the volume of sound physically interferes with you, for instance by damaging your ear-
drums, that is another thing).

That agrees with my thinking, although you need to codify "common law" because as Rand insists that laws be objective and clearly expressed so that people know what they can and cannot do and that the enforcement is strictly limited.

There seems to be a number of commentators who believe that your right to land is absolute and that if someone doesn't like what you do with it, they can move.

Good points, ML. One of the questions that is hovering around this thread is whether or not common law applies to our scenario.

Jan

I'm not an expert, but I believe that under "common law" which evolved over centuries, and I believe mostly rationally, you could not dam the stream because, even though it runs through your property, you cannot and do not own the stream, although you have a right to use it. Nor does the neighbor, but he has some "right" to the water in the stream.

Similarly, rather than some Gaia-worshipping bureaucrat telling an upstream paper mill that they cannot dump poisonous waste into the river that flows by because it "harms the Earth", it could have been (and should have been in the 1800's) properly forbidden, from doing so because it violates the rights of the users of the river downstream. Cleaning up the waste in producing the paper before discharging it into the river would be properly borne by the consumers of the paper, as part of its cost, which would probably be a negligible increase in paper cost.

Which is pretty much what I posted at the beginning of this thread.
"How I wonder when I wander....."

I am not living for the sake of you or asking you to live for my sake. Being rational, the only reason I have for being 'rational' and going out of my way to make sure I have my pond and that you will still have a stream is that there are consequences to me of not doing so.

One consequence is that you wouldn't like me. Well, maybe we are friends maybe not. We cannot build a rational society on the expectation that everyone will like each other.

It seems more reasonable to assume that you have a right to the water as well and that by putting up my dam I am depriving you of your property by force -- thereby initiating government activity to protect your right.

But we have to have a legal system that acknowledges that right in the first place.

Again, if we were being rational, a way to get your pond and me have my stream might be found. Several possibilities come to mind such as paying me for the loss of the stream, or diverting the stream in such a way as it feeds the pond and still flows through my property. Only irrational people want to have their way at the expense of others without any consideration. Why? Because it's madness to think that you can live among others and not deal with them. In real-life USA, it's a matter for the courts to decide. That's because only a minority of people run their lives with a large degree of rationality.

We are talking about an Objective territory, but what would prevent me from putting a dam on the stream so that I can have the big fish pond I want? Altruism?

Child abuse falls in a different category than goat abuse. One of the governmental aspects that we can almost universally agree is that that the government can protect individuals from others doing them harm.

That would also seem to cover child abuse, unless we don't count children as individuals until they reach a certain age.

Implicit in the "Imagine a country" opening is that we are considering an Objective legal system, so we don't automatically have all of our current laws such as zoning rules an building codes.

Some seem to want no limits on what you can do on your property at all, others have different approaches.

Are you advocating for "view rights"?

View rights are controlled by zoning rules and building codes. You know what can or cannot happen to your view when you buy; that is if you do your research (and not just believe what the selling agent tells you.) In Oregon, properties will sometimes be listed as having an “unobstructable view” meaning the properties below you, even if building to full allowable height won’t interfere with it.

However, speaking of shades of grey; we had two cases in recent years that worked out otherwise.

In Bend, a lot owner had a permit to build his house to the legal height but the lot owner behind him sued, claiming he was told his view was unobstructable but it wasn’t. Nevertheless, the judge ruled for him basically deciding he had the right to his view because he got there first and the new lot buyer was SOL.

In Oceanside, a new owner bought the local tavern, which was two storey's high and the three houses behind him could see over the roof, He got a permit to build a legal third story apartment for himself, blocking the view of their homes and “All hell broke loose,” The county steadfastly maintained he had the right to the new construction but the guy had a local business and the town boycotted it in sympathy for the aggrieved view losers (who knew or should have known they could someday lose their view. So, the business crashed he sold out. The new owners, with a more upscale restaurant-coffee bar are doing fine and the three house have no view.

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/the-her...

You must live in a busy urban area. People in that circumstance are usually on edge, at least in my experience. Being retired, I'm pretty much out of the high tension rat race and I live in a 160 year old Greek fishing village which is just recently getting touched by urban sprawl. So far, the people remain, for the most part, friendly and neighborly, but even here, if you attend board meetings, there is always someone with high pressure grief to unload. As an old guy, I attempt to remain cool and laid back, and pretty much the only thing that gets me riled up -- you probably guessed it, politics.

In fact I very much agree with Rand's indirect force and I would even expand it beyond what you can grudgingly extract from many of the more anti-violence crowd.

I think you are correct about basic premises - I do not expect the people around me to be rational. I live in a world where people can become angry over a parking space in front of a grocery store.

Jan

yes. . as I was reading your note, I got to government
and saw that the next word started with an s, so my
mind jumped to another oxymoron:::
government solution! . when the govt gets involved,
what was once a solution is now a problem! -- j
.

Jan, I think we have a conflict in basic premises. If this were a real life event, both of us being rational people, we would get together and find a solution.

Are we talking about today or a Randian Utopia?In a Rand Utopia rationality would prevail and the neighbor wouldn't dam the stream. In the current world, damming the stream would be considered an act of coercion, so that you would seek redress through whatever legal means available to you.

Herb - If you are asking about 'now' and 'current legal system', then yes you can call the police for sound pollution and they show up and tell your neighbor to turn the volume down. People have also sued airports for sound pollution.

But that is not my question: My question is how should this be handled. Your answer is quite straightforward (though I do not agree with it).

Jan

I was unclear in my description. (I was trying to be subtle; perhaps less that successfully.)

waytodude - It is important that you know that I do not 'have' answers to these things. My purpose in posting these quandaries is that I would like the capable and diverse minds on this list to examine some 'hard corner cases'...and see what we come up with.

So, yes, the question is that 'given that I know my neighbor is torturing goats' (or abusing babies or whatever despicable activity you would like to ascribe to some victim not capable of self-determination) what is the legal structure that we think appropriate to control this behavior (or not)?

Jan

Except for the Mexican army or the army of Mexicans depending on the time-frame.

Eventually, there is no where else to move and you have to figure out how to live in peace with your neighbor -- and have a government system for when that can't be done to mutual satisfaction.

Rand fudges a bit on the initiation of force by government. She introduces the concept of 'indirect force' in order to make fraud and breaking contracts forms of force that justify the use of government force 'as retaliatory force'.

Similarly deliberately exposing your neighbors to the threat of disease could be considered a form of indirect force.