You’re avoiding my question and it saddens me. I’m an anarcho-capitalist and I don’t want or need a lecture on the evils that governments have perpetuated. I ask you a simple question – tomorrow, if your neighbor painted “death to niggers and kikes” on the outside of his house, would you involve the state in some way (i.e. calling the police, alerting a local representative, etc)?
Don’t bother responding if you are unwilling to answer this question.
Lol. So you’re saying that your rights as a neighbor supersede the property rights of your neighbor?
Then the state should force you to take some Prozac.
**
No. But I would let everyone know.
For what purpose? So someone else would get the state involved?
If I may…
So that anyone that does not appreciate Jim’s Zeal for Nazism will keep it in mind when the opportunity to deal with him in the market arises…
What the hell is that supposed to mean?!![:P]
don’t answer[:)]…lol
So that we can persuade the Jew-hating Nazi-lover to remove the what he wrote.
That is not my problem, nor would it be my fault.
ain’t it!!!
lol
edit: that one you reponded this on was a hip-hip-hooray!!
Well what I said…
OOps Too Late…
So that the anti-anti-Semitic bakers will refuse him bread until he takes down the nazi stuff in his front yard… got it. Best response yet, thank you. Will throw this at my friend next chance I get.
damn
Jonathan M. F. Catalán replied on 12-08-2009 5:19 PM
“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).”
This is Gossen’s answer: compensate the other party if you prefer the result to the compensation.
demosthenes replied on 12-08-2009 5:37 PM
“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.”
This is also correct, because you would be responding to a threat (you don’t know whether he is lying or serious). If he’s not serious, then why would he write it (unless it turns out he is stupid by birth)?
I say, kick his ass if that’s what he wrote, since that’s an option. It’s cheaper than paying him off.
In the long run, paying him off would work better, apparently.
There is a popular Russian anecdote, about the power of incentives: A couple walks down the street and an idiot runs up and kisses the girl in the mouth. The guy, instead of punching the idiot, gives him 200 rubles. The idiot, having been given 200 rubles, tries this again, with other people, expecting 200 rubles. The next couple he sees he kisses the girl. The other guy is not so nice; he pulls out a gun, instead of 200 rubles, and shoots the idiot.
Would like you to mention that the state in fact requires people to interact with him based on his need of their services, anti-discrimination laws work both ways…
In an an-cap society where people are regarded by their reputation, and dealt with in the market place by such, they tend to keep things like your friends hypothetical Jim’s philosophy under wraps…
Which is the point of paying him off to give him an incentive to reveal his prejudices.
Then people won’t do business with him (in an A-capitalist society), and he’ll suffer the consequences.
Plus, the person who pays him off get’s higher property values.
“So you’re saying it is legitimate for the state to preemptively outlaw me from showing my genitals to people?”
Every time I read this I laugh.
If you show you genitals to someone who doesn’t want them, won’t he refuse to do business with you? Or worse, kick (!) you.
LOL, I would imagine so. But I don’t feel like personally testing this out. [:P]
I agree that “public” can be referred to rather as “stolen” for all we care. I don’t see your point in using “unobtainable”. A thing can be owned or not, and to own different things has different requirements (again, all I care to consider is the model of aprioristic libertarian law). What is unobtainable that has to do with property?
There might be actions which we call “impossible” that are merely impractical or yet to be conceived of. An example could be that we’d say compensating victims of murder truly (with the return of their stolen life) is impossible; however, should we conceive of how to do it, we know along what lines it should be done.
If a good is scarce, it should be alienable (commodifiable). If what you mean by unobtainable is “not-scarce”, like perhaps a mental state, then okay. This is the only way for a theory of property rights to maintain coherence. The unobtainable has no value to a system of property, whereas it might in another discussion.
It can’t (legally, from our perspective anyhow). First of all, the whole discussion of nazism is utterly worthless and could be discarded immediately. The question of whether his swastika is violating your easement rights to sunlight is a separate matter. For the discussion of the Home Owner Association, we must assume that the “undesirable neighbor” is not actually violating anyone’s rights. The presence of an advocate of a political theory which we might call pure evil, does not in itself constitute a threat, and a price is not ever property. It’s a fallacious appeal to emotion to use a nazi for this hypothetical situation, and we would find many more instances of more mildly undesirable neighbours.
Let’s say that the nazi moves in and waves his symbol of hatred peacefully for a few decades before passing in the night. To the neighborhood’s joy, an average, upstanding Joe buys the property and moves in. They’ve had the misfortune of depressed property values and decide (initiated by a thymological understanding that people don’t like living near “undesirables”) to ask Joe to join voluntarily into their HOA. Joe considers that his membership in the HOA might be beneficial, should he decide to move away. Perhaps future buyers will value rules barring public display of nazi imagery and be willing to join this HOA.
Joe might agree to cede a portion of his rights (to fly “offensive flags” although it harms none). He’d also have to agree likely that he could only sell a title to his land as long as the new tenant also agreed to HOA rules. He agreed to this for a reason after all. He can’t just back out and start flying crazy flags or break his contract later.
What if the HOA says it is undesirable to wear red scarves on Tuesdays and their members may be shot by HOA security on sight for doing such? Will Joe agree to this? I wouldn’t, but if I did, it is still legally the same situation. Even if I don’t like wearing scarves at all, It seems unlikely to me that having a house which I can only sell on the condition that someone would agree to this rule would not be economically beneficial.
We can call these juridical measures. They are legitimate, having been come to with all parties agreeing voluntarily, yet coercive in nature. Since we can’t initiate aggression, we must take these before any dispute arises.
Our time has not come yet, and the solution is right here for you. Consider buying property where neighbors agree to not paint penises with Hitler mustaches on them outside their home. The alternative is to consider aggression (government) as a means to your supposed ends.
I like cheese too.
**
No. I understand that the other things I value (my own property rights) can’t be coherently upheld without respecting my dumbass neighbor’s property rights as well.
Maybe some local grocery stores are members of the Anti-Dumbass Neighbor Alliance. Me sending them pictures of what this fool did to his house would lead to ADNA revoking his bonus card. Maybe they will decide that they can get more business by refusing to serve people like my neighbor at all. He can sunbathe naked on his front lawn as my kids come home from school, and I will absorb the increase in grocery prices in order to hopefully get rid of him. Similarly to how we know that it is expensive to fund a war without also stealing to pay for it, we can guess who will win this “battle”.
It’s a battle again upholding individual rights of free association that can lead to a desirable outcome. We can call these extra-juridical measures.
a) In an an-cap society, wouldn’t the kick be considered an act of aggression, while the running around with my genitals exposed be considered a non aggressive act of self-expression? I think the kicker would be at fault, not the nudist.
b) For a pervert hiding his identity with a mask, the threat of people refusing to do business with him provides very little disincentive to discourage him from exposing himself to children
Neither air nor sunlight are public properties. Your problem is you are trying to force the concepts of “air” and “sunlight” into a single aggregate. Anyone who tries to force “land” into an aggregate would run into the same problem.
But “land” is not public property even though many different people rightfully possess it, because “land” does not exist as an aggregate but is rather divided into many different private parcels. The same is true of “air” and “sunlight”.
If his flag is casting a detrimental amount of shade on your property then you would have case, but then you’ve just changed the goal posts. If shade was the conflict it wouldnt matter what was written on the flag.