Goat Evisceration
I imagine a country where everyone owns land under an allodial title and where the rights of an individual are protected by a limited government. I own…say, 10 acres. My neighbors have similar chunks of property. One of them plays music very loudly. One of them refuses vaccinations. One of them eviscerates goats for the fun of it.
These are all free people whose personal lifestyles infringe on mine. I do not want to hear my neighbor’s rap music. I shop at the same place as my vaccine-adverse neighbor. I have a real problem with random goat evisceration.
Without compromising the freedom of the individual: How do we deal with such behavior?
It’s popular to say, “Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose” – and that’s a clear example of one person doing damage to another. But according to the “butterfly effect”, every act in the world potentially affects the entire world. This is what governments use to take control of our lives in the interest of the common good. Since everything we do potentially affects everyone else, they all get a say in what we do.
In a pure, theoretical, world the problem is as simple as the nose on my face. Unfortunately, the complexity of the real world spoils that clarity and means that there will always be a gray area. How do we deal with the gray lines of the real world and maintain freedom?
Jan and Wm
(from a lunchtime conversation)
These are all free people whose personal lifestyles infringe on mine. I do not want to hear my neighbor’s rap music. I shop at the same place as my vaccine-adverse neighbor. I have a real problem with random goat evisceration.
Without compromising the freedom of the individual: How do we deal with such behavior?
It’s popular to say, “Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose” – and that’s a clear example of one person doing damage to another. But according to the “butterfly effect”, every act in the world potentially affects the entire world. This is what governments use to take control of our lives in the interest of the common good. Since everything we do potentially affects everyone else, they all get a say in what we do.
In a pure, theoretical, world the problem is as simple as the nose on my face. Unfortunately, the complexity of the real world spoils that clarity and means that there will always be a gray area. How do we deal with the gray lines of the real world and maintain freedom?
Jan and Wm
(from a lunchtime conversation)
Previous comments... You are currently on page 4.
If I were to describe my vision in...geometric...terms, it would look like this: Imagine that you go into Photoshop or a similar program. You 'draw' a foundation of laws - the Constitution. This is the lowest layer of the structure and these laws are designed to restrict the government and protect individual freedom. Changing this layer causes an 'earthquake' to all the layers above it - you do not change the Constitution often.
For the second layer, put down a 'hex grid' of private properties. When an individual buys one of these properties, he is already aware of the foundation Constitution layer and how it effects him. Each of these properties is owned by an individual and they can do 'whatever they want' within those boundaries.
The third layer is a thin grey layer that goes on top of the hexes...it has the laws that compromise individual rights - such as prohibiting animal cruelty, enforcing noise abatement, etc. These laws define the limits to the 'whatever they want', are subject to local control, and can change to reflect alteration in circumstances. Because these laws change more rapidly, when you buy a piece of property you do not necessarily know all the laws that will eventually apply to your land.
Right now, in our current society, the foundation Constitution layer has become compromised (and saps the rights of the individual as much as protecting them), the hexes of land ownership are weakened and the 'thin grey layer' is 40 stories deep. I would like to direct attention to this 'thin grey layer' and ask, "What touchstones do people come up with to adjudicate whether a proposed law (in my fictional geometric world) genuinely prevents abuse rather than encompassing social control?"
jimjamesjames has come up with some ideas (below). What do other people think? How do we do a better job of defining the purpose and philosophical limitations of local law?
Jan
Of course, since we are talking about the Gulch, we get to decide the legal system to see what activities your neighbor can perform that will cause you actionable damage.
Unrelated to Objectivism, there's something satisfying, in a twisted sort of way, to think that a California wind farm might slice to ribbons the last remaining Spotted Owl.
More on topic, there have been many lawsuits for "view pollution." It seems that when some people have a view of a beautiful lake or mountain it doesn't matter how many miles it covers or how many landowners are involved, they believe they have the right to that view for all of time. Lawsuits ensue!
I have a camp deep in the woods and I have to drive on paper company roads to get there. Last year they clear cut a LOT of the land all around me, even very close to my camp. It definitely wrecked the beauty of driving through the woods and it makes me sad look at acres of bare ground and not be able to recognize the land my family has enjoyed for 75 years.
But then I remember my grandfather telling me how we used to be able to sit on the porch and see all the way up the lake - but now we can't. The darned trees were more interested in growing than maintaining our view. The woods that my dad and I enjoyed didn't used to be there! The old timers who actually lived off of that land put in a tremendous effort just to keep their hunting trails clear as the woods grew up. I know because I've barely kept the trail from my camp to one of the neighbor's camps passable.
As much as we sometimes lament it, the world changes all around us. Over time that land will grow back up. And as I keep reminding my dad, who takes the logging very hard, if it weren't for the paper company we wouldn't have the roads we use to get to our camp and we'd have to come in by boat.
Boy, I guess I really wandered of target there!
With regard to goats... It is now illegal in my county for Mexicans (or anyone) to slaughter goats, because the Mexicans apparently eat goats alive or something like that.
As a result there is apparently a cottage industry of catching people selling goats for slaughter, and prosecuting them for violation of the statues. The key part is that the supposed Mexican asks to be allowed to kill the goat on your property. If you say, "Yes," it's a gotcha.
Court systems evolved to determine these points:
1. Is there a debt?
2. Define the debt
3. Who is liable for the debt?
4. How much is the debt?
5. How and when will it be paid?
6. Who will insure payment of the debt?
Assuming an honest judge and procedure, the "debt" can be addressed by answering the above issues.
And also agree on the "pure, theoretical world" comment. Such constructs are useful in some academic areas, but this thread does seem to be about how things are actually decided in the real world.
[edit for typos and clarification]
As far as the high rise issue, yes, I agree and I don't remember any legal cases where someone tried to block a building over the view issue...although that doesn't mean there have never been any.
I do remember a couple of other amusing ones from my days in upstate NY. Actually these were in the Berkshires of Mass., about half an hour from my NY house. Also, like most of Mass., pretty much to the Left.
In one small town, the neighbors complained that a man painted his house a color that didn't fit in with the "traditional New England feel" of the town. So he then painted it in about 7 different bright pastel shades, fairly random pattern. I guess there was nothing they could do, as it stayed that way for the few years I lived up there. I think I'd like to meet that guy.
In a close by, smaller, but really old town, kind of like thew original Model T car: "You could have it in any color, as long as it's black". In this town the by-laws said the quaint colonial houses all had to be painted completely "colonial" white (maybe you could have black shutters). That doesn't bother me too much, as it was known before you purchased a house there, what the local laws were.
I guess I'm not contributing much but anecdotes to the discuss, but as I said earlier, I'm traveling and chilling in a hotel room. Maybe I'll get more serious as the night wears on, or when I get back home tomorrow...
And BTW: Up the Turtle!!!
[edit for some missing content]
How do you define the freedom of the individual? Is it unlimited? It cannot be a state of nature since you have premised a limited government. What is the scope of this freedom? This limited government would have laws against unwarranted noise and animal cruelty. There is no gray area here.
PS There is no such thing as a "...pure, theoretical world..." Humans must exist prior to governments and property rights. That is, unless you subscribe to Plato's Theory of Forms.
If your neighbor eviscerates your goat, then your property rights are primary and have been violated. If your house is next to the common property line and your neighbor places giant stereo speakers at the property line and pointed at your house, then you probably have a strong case. Otherwise, 10 acres is a big plot of land nowadays, and sound energy attenuates significantly with separation distance. If your neighbor has smallpox and says it's not contagious while mingling around everyone, then you likely have a strong case. Otherwise, you are likely over-reacting and worrying yourself unnecessarily.
As you probably could tell by my response, I'm not the meddling type. While I do not approve of many things others do, I tolerate it. I also try not to do anything I think might annoy my neighbors, being as conscientious as I can. I realize that is a rare trait in modern America, based on countless observations I have made of others...
+2
Much of her commentary deals with the idea that a valid moral code must allow the explicit determination of whether a specific act is good or evil. This makes sense from mathematics since a set of axioms is considered inconsistent if you can prove something both true and false at the same time using them. Of course a set of axioms can be consistent but still not allow you to determine the truth of all propositions. Godel says this is always the case with any set of axioms. What this says about systems of moral axioms, I'm not sure.
In any case the usage I intended was more along the lines of what Rand's comments:
"There are, of course, complex issues in which both sides are right in some respects and wrong in others -- and it is here that the 'package deal' of pronouncing both sides 'gray' is least permissible. It is in such issues that the most rigorous precision of moral judgment is required to identify and evaluate the various aspects involved -- which can be done only by unscrambling the mixed elements of 'black' and 'white.'"
So I withdraw the use of gray and substitute "complex, requiring rigorous precision". So, how do we do that?
Your example of the high-rise being built in front of a 'view home' is another good instance of what one person perceives as 'rights' interfering with another individual's freedom. I do not think that any of us would say that the person building the high-rise on his own property does not have a right to do that, but it does lower the value of the 'view home'.
Jan
There is a quote from Rand, which I recall from 40+ years ago, so I'm ham-handedly paraphrasing (and prepared to be called totally incorrect in my recollection): "There are no gray areas. The concept implies knowledge of its component colors: black and white, and therefore knowing the right from wrong."
As I recall, I agreed with that statement in the context it was made, which I assume had to do with major issues of morality.
But I do believe that in a complex, advanced society, issues of property rights, and, especially in close quarters, necessarily lead to "non-major" issues which are not black or white, and call for a court or private arbitration, or local laws. Loud music is, IMO, a pretty straightforward one: limited somehow, in my experience, by time of day (nothing "disturbing the peace" after 10PM). Sounds reasonable to me, yet hardly "black and white".
Having lived in Manhattan for a time, my example would be: "Hey, I bought this apartment because of it's great view of the GW bridge. Now I find out a building is going up next to mine, and will block my view. Are my property rights being violated?"
Or, and this was a hot topic in my little rural Canadian county for the past few years: My neighbor is offered a ton of money and tax incentives to put up a huge wind turbine to feed to electric company. By what right or rights can I object? That it's unsightly and ugly? That it makes noise? Or, that in reality it is truly inefficient and does not really help the supposed "global warming" problem (good luck with that last one).
I think I've only added more questions. I do believe there is some sort of answer, based on reason, to resolve these types of issues, and that others with more actual legal education and experience in property rights law can answer.
(FYI: it was fun to watch my local situation.The Canadian county I live in is, well, kind of like California, except further Left. So it was liberal vs. liberal. In the end, there wasn't even the merest reference to "property rights". Pro-turbines were "green environmentalists", anti-turbines were those that felt turbines would interfere with the local "micro-ecosystem". Charts upon charts of wind energy contributing passive, sustainable, eco-friendly power to the economy, vs. charts of numbers of migrating birds killed by turbines, etc. The latest final solution, but subject to appeal: the turbines lost, as their presence would somehow interfere with the migration patterns of a unique local turtle. I'm overwhelmed by the triumph of the turtle.)