I remember hearing this on Charles Adler a year ago (unfortunately). The worst part was the callers who expressed that such draconian measures were justified in the name of their petty inconveniences, and the unruly pups should be seized from insert invective here owners. Not surprising to hear this kind of crap, it is talk radio afterall.
My question is would this non-issue be seen as a violation of property rights and the use of unjust force under the NAP?
Hmm, it’s an interesting issue that I haven’t really considered before. I would argue that sound pollution (of any kind) could be considered a kind of aggression… this is kind of a slippery slope, though. If we assume that sound pollution is aggression, I think the only justified punishment would be restitution to the victim(s). I can’t come up with a compelling reason to ever take away someone’s pet or other property in the name of sound pollution.
Depends if the sound is infringing on their homesteading. If I homestead a farm and your dogs run across it howling their butts off, but don’t cause any other problems, I can’t persecute them since them runnin around in my field doesn’t harm my ability to farm.
But yes, if you’ve homesteaded a house for the purposes of living peacefully, and that is interrupted, you have a claim against whoever. Although its a good idea to use the bare minimum amount of force and just get the owners to compensate you later.