I am a blossoming anarcho-capitalist and my friend is a Huckabee-type republican. Today we were having a discussion about local governments and he asked me the following:
“Let’s say you have lived in a neighborhood for years and your next-door neighbor Jim (who just moved in a week ago) insists upon publicly expressing his anti-Semitic views. On his front yard he has erected a giant Nazi flag with a swastika symbol, he has ‘Death to the Jews’ painted in large, red letters all over his house, etc. You are have been trying to sell your house for months and since Jim has moved in you have noticed the price of your home has drastically dropped by X dollars, presumably due to his self-expression.”
Would it be unjust for me, a libertarian, to petition for government involvement in this conflict on the grounds that my neighbor has ‘harmed’ me by the amount of X dollars? In an anarco-capitalist society how would this problem be dealt with?
I was at a loss for words and would appreciate the help of the forum. Thanks.
You have no right to the “value” of your house. No one has any right to the value of anything- everything in this world will always go up and down in value. Your neighbor hasn’t harmed you by X amount of dollars- you failed to convince buyers that its still worth it to pay X dollars for your house despite your fun-loving neighbor. What if your neighbor had erected a different kind of giant flag and suddenly the price of your home went up because buyers wanted to get into that neighborhood? Would you be compensating your neighbor for helping to increase the value of your home? I don’t think so.
Well, it would be unjust if you or the government coerced Jim into not being able to express his ideology on his own property. Coercion is definately against libertarian principles. Although Jim is devalueing your property, I don’t think that justifies you forcing him to change his lawn to bring the price of your property back up. On the other hand, if you stand to profit, I’m not sure why you could not compromise (with the use of money, for example). Maybe there is something you could offer that has higher utility to Jim than keeping his Nazi flag on display in public (at least, until you sell the house).
Likelihood? This is not only rare, but almost unheard of, and quite frankly let us flip the coin, I farm my property and create Humus through composting, some people may not like it and through those people the price of neighboring properties would go down, does that mean the state has a right to order me to cease and desist? The real issue is, are pleasant neighbors more important than freedom?
Shave your head, go to an Aryan Nation Meeting and sell your house to Jim’s Buddies, they will pay top Dollar. In all honesty, that is precisely what I would do, I am already bald…
The percieved value of your home based on your neighbors is not them “harming you” (in my opinion) as your property is yours and theirs is theirs, you just need to find the market participant that will pay the value you will accept for your home…
The only purpose of involving the government in your issue would be to use force to coerce someone else, this is inherently wrong and in the case that you did I personally would applaude Jim in seeking remuneration against you, despite the fact I personally abhore his personal expression…
It’s actually not unlikely. It doesn’t have to be in the form of a Nazi flag. The big tree in front of my house probably devalues my neighbor’s property, as does the “welfare” housing next to my mother’s more up-scale housing complex. I know of one guy who painted his house pink, with the express intent of lowering the value of his neighbors’ houses (there was some type of argument going on beforehand). So, these types of incidents are not rare or unheard of.
But, I agree that there is absolutely no logical case that can be made to not allow them to do what they want on their own property.
Would it be unjust for a Jew to give the guy a beatdown? I’d claim self-defense, seeing as the words “Death to the Jews” painted on the wall present a clear case of a threat to use force. At least that’s what I’d say if I was the Jew’s attorney.
I think his point is that you are forming a nonsensical hypothetical due to the irony. That in anarchist society, there will be groups trying to form (National Socialist) governments. Which is nonsensical, because an anarchist society is one in which problems are no longer solved in this manner. Either through so many people being unwilling to support the political system through taxation or due to the complete failure of such a system otherwise to operate.
it remains to be seen, why – if a society has so many anarchist that it would become anarchistic – anyone would find it worthwhile to preach national socialism or be able to find a home in a neighborhood that knows these views lower property values (as well as disrupt the libertarianism of that community).
It is not reductio ad hitlerum, since your hypothetical actually includes Hitlerites. And so his particular philosophy is relevant. His philosophy is one of statism. Which is incompatible with anarchist communities.
How far, exactly, do property rights extend?Let’s say the nazi flag was only an inch from my property and was so large that it cast my house in the shade, depriving me of sunlight?
Yes, the flag is technically on his property, but aren’t the realms of his property vs my property vs public property (i.e. air and sunlight) not so clearly defined?
I would deny that my hypothetical is nonsensical. Exaggerated, yes, but similar instances of conflicts between neighbors are painfully common. Please do not shy away from the point at hand by deeming the hypothetical too extreme and therefore not worth considering.
Yes. You have no right to any specific home value in terms of what your neighbor does with his house. To speak otherwise is to admit to the IP people’s claim that someone can have ownership of your property.
Likelihood in the sense that the majority of property owners are not purposely making a display of their homes in such a manner that devalue the properties around them…
But we agree that there is no logical case for oppressing the property owner on his own property…