You prove too much. If carbon dioxide is everywhere, then its not pollution.
Every single sound produced in a neighborhood is not a violation against every other person. When you own a house in a neighborhood included in the deal are those noises typical of a neighborhood. Its only when a person produces atypical noises that he has infringed upon his neighbors, loud music all night, for example.
Now, if a person owned a house in the wilderness and others moved in and created the noises of a neighborhood that would be pollution. The solution to this is that people in rural areas hold tracks of land large enough to keep neighbors at a distance.
You can only homestead property as you find it.
If a factory exists in the middle of the forests and you come and build a house next to it, you can’t claim the factory is polluting on your property. You can’t homestead something that doesn’t exist, and a pollution free parcel of land didn’t not exist there when you arrived.
As I’ve said all of the problems Friedman presents arise from a faulty concept of property; and they are addressed by the homesteading theory of property.
Does this include exhaling or turning on a light in my own house? You think those things should be punishable?! That’s crazy, but it’s the logical conclusion of the NAP.
I’m getting the feeling that you haven’t read a single link I’ve posted. Again, you’re polluting just by exhaling. Even if that wasn’t true, we would all still be dead if there was no pollution. It isn’t possible.
Ok, now we’re getting somewhere. For the record, I agree with you from a legal perspective. But if I have an absolute right to freedom from aggression, and claim that certain noises violate it, who’s to say I’m wrong?
As Friedman puts it, The obvious response is that only significant violations of my property rights count. But who decides what is significant? If I have an absolute property right, then I am the one who decides what violations of my property matter. If someone is allowed to violate my property with impunity as long as he does no significant damage, we are back to judging legal rules by their consequences.
I think most on this forum would disagree.
In any case, this assumes that pollution is always some clear cut case of a big nasty factory next to house. It isn’t. If the factory were to contribute to acid rain in some other location, for instance, does that mean those in the location invited it? As I said, pollution is inescapable and its effects are everywhere.
It is crazy, which is why few people would do it, but it is nevertheless punishable if it constitutes a violation (and of course is proven to be one.)
So what? If you think it is pollution, that implies it is also the case when you do it - so stop breathing. Or agree to put up with it so that you can also emit CO2.
If I’m right from a legal prespective than its not an aggression and has nothing to do with the “absolute right to freedom from aggression”, 'cause it ain’t aggression!
Its not a matter of significant violations vs minor violations. Its a matter of violation versus no violation.
Most on this forum would agree that appealing to the majority doesn’t win debates around here.
Are you suggesting that I can create a positive obligation on the factory? If you don’t want pollution to fall on you, don’t stand where pollution is falling. Its only when you were standing there first that you have a property right to prevent it from beginning to fall.
What in that implies that pollution can not be handled on a case to case basis?
Case 1: If your house was there before the factory/pollution started, the factory is pushing its pollution on you. You can charge the factory for pain & suffering damages. Your P&S damages decrease when the factory cleans up its processes. If the factory is paying for damages for everyone in the town it is built in, then they will have to decrease their pollution or go broke.
Case 2: If the factory was there first and you move in/build a house next to it, you are pushing the pollution onto yourself. The factory is not liable for your damages. Later on, if the factory turns up its pollution, they now owe for the extra P&S, but not the base P&S.
A combination of the two cases is what keeps pollution down, encourages cleaner technology, and makes sure everyone gets their restitution.
Thought you might like some lol’scourtessy ofindividual that I wasdebating on the NAP. He just threw this in my face last night, and I haven’t had time to respond yet. Read this carefully, you can that this kid is an intellectual heavyweight. [:D]
Oh, and by way of context, I told him that the utilitarian calculations needed to prove that a violation of the NAP would increase total happiness or pleasure in a society were literally impossible to make. He set out to prove me wrong, using one of those lifeboat situations where there are thousands ofdying people around and one man holds all of the world’s water on his property. This is his attempt too justify its theft (and curiously, he also tries to justify needless murder…)
Beyond the ovbious, (namely, that it’s complete bullshit) anyone have any extra clever thoughts or observationsthat I might add to my rebutal?
Whence does it follow from any of that that he’s an “intellectual heavy weight” as opposed to a brat pulling stuff out of his rear? What if the subjective harm to the owner from that was so huge it outweighed his “utilitarian” calculus? Then what?
Curse the internet’s inability to convey sarcasm. I was hoping the smiley face would do the trick. I was indeed kidding, and your assesment is precisely what I thought of his response. It’s nonsense.
Lifeboat situations are incredibly tricky. At first glance, they appear to be voluntary acts of aggression. However, it becomes clear that if there had not been a prior aggression, accident, or natural disaster, they would not be clamoring for your water. Libertarianism is a very deontological philosophy, and my stance is solely concerned with the intentions of the action. Here is my reasoning for the situation:
1: Dehydration is caused by natural disaster (no one is at fault in any way whatsoever)
The people (including yourself) are being forced by nature to require your water. I would say that you are justified in keeping them off your property. Or, you could let them on and they would be liable for all damages and the cost of water. Hey, who ever said nature was fair?
2: Dehydration is caused by human accident (someone made an “oopsie”)
Someone tripped on a cord at the water plant, causing all the water to be vaporized. Everyone is being forced to your water because of that guy’s accident. All damages as a result are charged to him (restitution), but he could not be punished by physical force (self-defense).
3: Dehydration is caused by human aggression (someone wants to kill everyone)
Guy at water plant is fed up with society and destroys the water on purpose. All damages are charged to him and he is also fair game for kill on sight.
This is just my stance, and does not speak for anyone else here (unless they want to speak for it too).
It is the same kind of situation if someone points a gun at another and says, “hey, punch that guy over there or die”. The puncher should still have to pay restitution; however, so should the gunman plus retribution. The thing is that nature cannot pay restitution–if you get struck by lightning in the middle of a field on a sunny day, then unless you have insurance, you are out of luck; you ain’t getting any money from the clouds.
Well since we can make it up as we go, I’d say this one man was the only doctor and the only person who knew medicine and now nobody gets national health care in his socialistic fantasy land. So hope nobody gets sick or else the pandemic may wipe 'em all out.
Well…this is the tricky part. What you call aggression is what I would call “aggression significant enough to punish.”
I’m not saying that the majority is necessarily right, just noting it’s a unique perspective on property and pollution.
I’m not discussing the technical difficulties (though I think they’re a problem), but the fact that pollution and its effects are inescapable. People would be allowed to seek restitution against virtually anyone for any reason. If nobody committed “aggression,” we’d be screwed.
I didn’t say no one committed aggression. I said that the plaintiff has to prove why they had the right to keep out that particular pollutant(ie, show property right) and what damages must be compensated for.
words like ‘sex’ and ‘rape’ that are used to describe things have meaning by virtue of a degree of convention… are you hoping to abandon all reliance on convention?