Out of interest, let’s say I’m cooking 20 miles away and somehow the smell reaches you, am I liable?
And yet you’re avoiding the issue.
Which issue, I’m honestly trying to adress everything you say, even though you didn’t answer one simple (or maybe not that simple) question.
Whatever, one more time, I’ll try to guess what do you mean, please you with an answer and hope you can answer my question.
As I said in my first post, I can sue the farmers only if my property was cow-sent free before, and now somebody starts to send those sents at me. If I moved to a place, where cow farmers were doing their thimg before I came, I have no claim against them.
No way to sue nature, would like to give her a piece of my mind though.
Anything else I avoided that I can stop avoiding to get you to stop avoiding what you were avoiding up to now? 
Suppose I own a plot of land, and there is a neighboring unowned plot, which I haven’t performed any labor on. However, I like to throw bricks onto that property on an irregular basis. Then you move in there. Are you claiming that I can throw bricks at your house and at you, having “homesteaded” the right to throw bricks onto that property?
There seems to be a tendency to get fixated on property as the be-all-end-all of libertarianism. In actuality, the point of libertarianism is not property, but freedom from aggression. I may not aggress against you and then dress up my action in property terms to make it ok.
So, what do we do about smells? I may not throw bricks at you, I may not throw cups at you, I may not throw feathers at you - does this sequence end somewhere? Is there some point that I can throw small things at you? I challenge that this is a problem. If I may throw atoms at you, then why not bricks? Bricks, after all, are nothing but atoms. From a perspective of property-fixation, this seems unsolvable.
I actually did; you just didn’t understand it. That’s ok. It happens. No big deal.
If I wear deoderant that you don’t like, do you get to sue me for it? Of course not. It’s beyond ridiculous.
Then what of a factory emiting pollution in an otherwise uninhabited area? Must it be compelled to diminish or even cease its operations if someone moves in nearby? It has after all homesteaded a pollution easement…
-Jon
-
Size - irrelevant, only provability of harm, and link to human action. I hope thats agreeable, will make it easier to discuss.
-
Airborn mobility (human action) - If I know, that it is a typical state of nature, that wind blows from my land towards yours, does that mean I can put light trash in such a way, that will cause it to fly on your property? I could blame it on nature of course. “Honestly, I REALLY wanted to throw my trash directly to the surface of the sun. It’s that damn gravity that made it fall on your land. Cursed nature!”. I knew perfectly well, that when I’m cooking curry, my windows aren’t good enough to keep the sent inside. Human action indeed, unless you treat people like morons. But wait, even then not knowing that you cause a harm still makes it a harm. So let’s move on.
-
Provability of harm - Through human action you have changed some objective characteristics of my property. Just as you cannot spray-paint my house red, you cannot “spray-sent” it curry.
Man, did you read my first two posts??? I know what I say there is debatable, maybe even false:P, but it does NOT imply, that I claim the right to use force against everyone! I said, that when you homestead property, you homestead it with some rights - to make sounds, make smells etc., which are “lower ranked”, then the rights to the same actions, that where aquired by owners before you.
Why not? I don’t see much difference between shaking my windows, and making my drapes smelly.
Thanks for clearing that up. I completely agree:)
That’s why I try to add some non-property rights, that are conected with property rights, to solve problems like that:
… by acknowledging, that property comes with some sort of right to keeping its characteristics (not value) intact. Probably not doing it good enough, but I think this is the way to pursue.
Pardon? I meant this question, could you please quote the part when you answer it?
“How do you know that leaving trash changes physical integrity, and leaving smaller particles of physical entities does not?”
Or do you mean the answer is “It’s beyond ridiculous”?
Why would it come with such a right? If someone knowingly enters into an area where e.g. loud noises are common they have only themselves to blame later on if they find them intrusive.
-Jon
How do you know that it does? You posit, you prove. Of course, you’ll have to demonstrate how a few atoms which aren’t toxic at all will have some serious impact upon your property.
Agree. Maybe it’s to late and my english is getting worse, but thats exactly what I meant.
(yeah, “characteristics” intact - and the characteristics exist at the moment of entering the area. So yes, you simply know what you’re getting yourself into.)
I can smell the impact, just as I can see that somebody spray painted my house. And to prove that we can look at my EEG:P
Ok then. You walk by my house. You smell the roses on your way just because they’re in bloom and you can. My roses have impacted your olfactory sense. So clearly, according to you, this is a violation of property rights.
It would be easier if you read all we write here, not just the exchange between me and you, this was mostly dealt with.
There is no violation of rights, because nobody forced me to go there. My choice.
(aside: not just because they’re in bloom. Because somebody planted them there. Essential point in my stance - not blaming nature)
Edit: Damn, it’s dawn again. Good night people.
Oh I do read it all; you just kept refusing to acknowledge the answer. So it has to be brought up again and again.
No it’s not. You also need the means to impose your logical conclusions on others.
And speaking of imposition, it occurs to me that the absence of any right in property value means the courteous and refined have a duty to endure the rude and the slovenly. There is no way high net worth individuals would voluntarily endure such a system, even if you could demonstrate its correctness in the abstract.
Which “answer”? The one, in which you said the burden of proof is on me? Ok, I acknowledged it, and tried to prove my point.
Then you base on part of my position, and draw upon it an absurd conclusion in order to disprove it. But that was delt with two posts earlier:
In your example: NO RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED, BECAUSE IT WAS MY CHOICE TO START WALKING AROUND THAT PLACE. And the sent was there first.
So what? That holds true for any proposition. Thats why most of us - I think - want to win the battle for human minds. Ideas matter, bla, bla bla.
Besides, high net wortf idndividuals can benefit as well, rudness and slovenly will not occure, or can be punished. Or has the right to be there. Both ways there is no problem. Read this whole page.
Most people are not going to think a system whereby they just have to grit their teeth and put up with rude, slovenly neighbors is a good idea. So you lose.
What instead will form will be communities of like-minded individuals, and you will have to agree to certain covenants in order to live there.
They would form. But some people would still hate fascist homeowner associations and avoid them.