No. Your whole position violates the self-ownership principle. It requires a concession that you partially own the property of everyone around you, because without that ownership you have no right to restrict the actions they take on it.
If there is physical harm being committed, then it is they who are violating your ownership of your property. But annoyance is not physical harm. The necessary conclusion of your position is that a person would have to give you the right to enter their property and destroy anything which emits a smell - effectively that nobody can own something that has a smell, ever. And everything has a smell.
It is wholly incompatible with any notion of property. If you believe that you have an enforceable right not to smell things that you find offensive, you do not believe in any form of ownership except of YOUR ownership over everyone and everything else. If that’s what you believe, then don’t call yourself a libertarian, because what you are is an unprincipled egoist. Which I still find preferrable to statism - but it is not libertarianism.
I agree, it’s a policy decision. But offensive touchings and indecent exposure don’t inflict physical harm nor does emotional cruelty. Obviously, it’s cost-prohibitive to allow little old ladies to sue people because they say “Damn!” But again, it’s just a policy choice and at some point the consensus will build for banning certain harmful activities that don’t result in actual physical harm. The violation of another person’s peace of mind (which I’m sure you’ll agree is as much “yours” as anything else is) is still there.
Now, I know anarchists like to preach that nobody has a right to property value but the fact is that people are going to take action if you decide to leave the carcasses of dead animals on your front lawn. Thus, they will form neighborhood associations and you’ll have to covenant not to perform certain activities if you want to live there.
Or you can just buy the vacant lot next to the aluminum smelter and nobody will complain when you let the junk pile up. In fact, I think that’s probably where most anarchists will end up living their dream: down by the aluminum smelter and turpentine refinery where the sewage from all the higher value properties empties out.
It is an abstract argument, and it may even be a logically correct one, but that’s all it is. In the real world, people use the means at their disposal to protect the value of their property, just as they use the means at their disposal to protect their market share.
No it doesn’t. Read my two first posts on the topic. I stated how I suppose the problem should be delt with. I think I’m gonna waist some time to find Rothbard on “servitudes” to back me up with an ex cathedra argument:P
Are, or are not smells physical entities? Do you disagree, that placing a physical entity on my property IS physical harm? What’s the difference between small particles of odor, and biger particles of - lets say - sand? You wouldn’t allow me to drop sand on your property, would you?
unprincipled egoism. wow:D
No, I hope it’s not incompatible, I think it’s necessary, as I tried to explain in my first two posts. Nobody wants to deal with my train analogy:(
Why do you treat small physical objects (which odor consists of) different then biger objects, like trash? Both are at my place, both are being sent here by someone without my consent. Point me the difference please (except the size of course:P)
Agree! (yes, it is possible to agree with someone)
I am treating them the same, because I thought that all physical objects are subject to the same rules, property rights apply to physical objects. Also physical integrity is being changed when one uses some physical objects on another other physical objects (or body).
Do you agree with the above statement? If not, then how do you know that leaving trash changes physical integrity, and leaving smaller particles of physical entities does not?
Size and airborne mobility - and the provability of physical harm. The movement of the sand cannot happen without the commission of human action in any quantity large enough to cause damage. The crossing of an odor onto your property is the same as if a high wind carried a minute mass of sand from one yard to another - it is an act of nature, not an act of man. In niether case would you have a just claim against the owner of the property from whence the material originated.
Only if the sand were moved directly by a person, or if the quantity were large enough to physically alter your property in a damaging manner, would you have any such claim.
See above.
That’s what it boils down to - you claim a right to use force against the originator of a smell. Everyone and their property has a smell. Ergo, you claim the right to use force against everyone and their property. Except things like pure nitrogen, I guess. That is certainly egoism, and it cannot be principled since under such a paradigm nobody has the right to control property but you. Excluding things like pure nitrogen.
It is not analogous to an odor. It is more analogous to the sand moved by a person onto your property.
How properly understood property rights would resolve that problem I tried to explain in my first two posts. Somebody has the right to do something, somebody hasn’t. Nobody has to sue the farmers (unless they are evil farmers:P), and there can be a lot of cow…, erm, curry cooking.
Nevermind, the trick is you avoid my question.
I repeat it then: How do you know that leaving trash changes physical integrity, and leaving smaller particles of physical entities does not? (Clue: define what do you mean by changes in physical integrity, and then show how the definition applies to bigger objects, but not to smaler)
The answer to this question could be the key to ending this debate and getting back to serious stuff, like abolishing the state, central banking and curry cooking. I hope.
unprincipled egoism. wow:D