The problem is that one person cannot enjoy their property independent of what their neighbor does. I think that one of the things government does is to protect each of our rights to our propery. Of course determining exactly what they are can be difficult.

Let's take another case. I live next to you a stream runs through my property and then yours. Can I dam the stream and build a pond thereby cutting off your stream. It's my property and my stream?

In addition to a shared stream, we have shared air. Can I build burn old tires and have the noxious air cross your property. If I can, is there a limit to how many.

And, of course, back to the rock music, we share an auditory space with birds the babbling brook (unless I put up my dam). If I add heavy metal to the auditory space the sound doesn't stop at the border to my property either. What right do I have to put my music on your property?

When I first read your thread I had no idea the animals were being tortured. I have a great love for my land and the animals on it domestic and wild while not having no illusion I maybe eaten them at a proper harvest time and harvester in as humane method as possible. People that torture any animal shouldn't be allowed to walk along freely with the rest of mother nature.

Really?
When did that happen? So, you'll equate a jet plane flying overhead the same as trash dumped on your property? Do you include all sound, such as noise, birds, trash collectors, as well? So, you are saying that you want to limit your neighbor's freedom to listen to music in the manner he chooses, so you can be free to not hear it. As I see it, when it comes to freedom, with the exception of any form of coercion, it boils down to two things. The right to say no, and MYOB (Mind your own business).

Indeed, it does sound great!

You have made a better answer than I did. Thank you.

Jan

Excuse me blackswan - I did not have my head on straight. I have been wandering in other speculations dealing with diseases with no vaccine. In my example, there was indeed a vaccine but the individual refused to take it. The people who did have the vaccine would indeed be protected in my example.

That is an excellent permutation on the question, Zenphamy. My example used a person we could point at and term 'bad'...but if we change the question to a person who cannot become immune to esmallbolapox (a brand new Dread Disease) then the question becomes more pure: how do you forcefully quarantine a person in a free society? (esmallbolapox has no vaccine and quarantine is the only solution) Zenphamy does not think he has been exposed; most other people think that he was. Does Zenphamy become the new Typhoid Mary for esmallbolapox?

Jan

I had a pet pygmy goat for a while - Jolly. I also like goat curry. Yum. But I was not posing a question regarding the slaughter of animals (eg for meat) - the goats are being vivisected for the fun of it. This is something that does not cross a property line, but which I cannot condone. That is the quandary I am trying to resolve. If one agrees that one cannot torture goats for fun, and makes a law against it - as there would be against torturing a human being - then where do we draw a line?

Jan

Smart a...'cheeks'.

Jan

The goats are being tortured to death. Am I supposed to ignore that?

The disease is something contagious for which there is no vaccine and has a 50% mortality rate.

Yes, I can ignore the rap - but why should I have to? Is it not my neighbor's responsibility to keep his music from eking over my property line?

Jan, not making it easy

Why should my neighbor be able to 'throw' his music over my property line when it would be a violation of my property rights for him to throw his garbage over onto my property? Music is no less a physical object than trash is.

Jan

And the monotonic optimization of capitalism gets you another point!

Jan

I certainly don't agree with spreading them. That's the initiation of force. But I also don't agree with the initiation of force by a society or government. As I said, I had 4 small pox inoculations that never took. Does that mean I'm not allowed in society?

The issue is something called "herd immunity". Vaccination is not magic, it prepares your immune system to fight the underlying disease and works on people in varying degrees.

If enough people refuse vaccination and the disease spreads through the population, even some people who were vaccinated are at risk.

Diseases like Smallpox and Polio are special in that they only live in human beings. If you can vaccinate everyone they can be removed from the planet permanently. Smallpox has been, except for samples kept in laboratories (and possible biological weapons programs) and polio is almost wiped out. It is still endemic in Afghanistan, Nigeria and Pakistan.

I've been hearing a lot about vaccinations lately. The risk is not to the person vaccinated, assuming that the vaccination is effective, but to the un-vaccinated. Therefore, since the un-vaccinated is assuming all the risk, I fail to see why anyone else should be upset.

I've concluded that buying a home for any reason other than living in it, especially for such things as "views" that are on others' property is something that I'll never pay a premium for. Anyone who chooses to pay such a premium clearly isn't as smart as his money, and deserves to lose it.

There are 3 things you can do.
1. soundproof your house, so the loud music won't bother you.
2. tint your windows, so the sight of blood doesn't sicken you.
3. don't worry about the non-vaccinated individual; if there's an outbreak, he will suffer the consequences, not you, and if there's no outbreak, neither of you has lost anything.

I think the $6,000,000 verdict comes from the concept of punitive damages -- which I'm not so enthusiastic about supporting. It's one thing to repay the damage that you did, it's another to have a sum, potentially massive, assessed "just because".

This may be an attempt to use civil law as a punishment for criminal cases. It tends to come up in situations such as product liability when it is financially beneficial to allow a flaw to remain in your product and simply pay for the damages.

Of course, from a societal point of view that might be the right answer. If the damage made by the flaw is less than the cost of fixing it, and the price of fixing it will be passed on, maybe it really is best to simply pay the damage.

Of course fraud is a different thing.

There are, of course, examples of diseases and allergies which can be dangerous to a few people that we can assume are part of the risk of being alive.

However, there are also diseases that are almost universally deadly and highly communicable. Historically societies have used isolation to protect themselves. I don't think you can consider spreading them as legitimate personal choice. I think you do need public health laws.

Funny, child abuse, or differences in parenting strategies (e.g. spanking) was another I was thinking of noting would be similar to the goat example.

Clearly animals for meat is not offensive in general. Sadism is. How that should be limited is hard. It requires a overwhelming collective belief that the practice is inappropriate, a belief I share. If I just knew my neighbor was doing this, but did not have sensory evidence, I might be inclined to simply ostracize him. Should we stop him by force (law) is a tough question.

Thank you Thoritsu. The goat question was intended to demonstrate an unacceptable behavior that did not leave the property - sadism. Another example would be child abuse. (I did not mean the example of the efficient slaughter of animals for meat.)

I have no easy or set answer to these questions either...and the input I am reading on this thread is giving me a lot to consider.

Jan

Such an interesting question. Thanks Jan and Wm.

Since almost any government action is an infringement on individual freedom, I would start there. Clearly there are government actions we need, arguably a military, basic laws to define the limits of individual actions infringing on other's freedoms (e.g. murder or rape), perhaps fire departments and police, etc.
My thought is the government should only take action when the monotonic optimization of capitalism will hit a local minima. For example, setting boiler pressure vessel codes to keep people from being killed in steam engine explosions, perhaps FAA-type regulations to keep planes safe, a highway system, perhaps space travel if one thinks there is an mission there, etc. These are things that could be done privately, but probably do not have a payback on the huge capital investment required in a manner fiscally possible by companies or revenue is too difficult to collect.
It seems to me the involvement of government should only be when a significant common good is desired/required AND a capitalist-driven interest will not provide it.
Loud music, or loud motorcycles is a good example. A person may like it, but exposing others to it that don't like it is a very much like the fist engaging the nose. Headphone work. I don't like them, so I play my loud progressive rock in the basement mancave, underground, where the nose does not travel. Seems like a dB level for public places or other people's private property is a reasonable limit on one's freedom not interfering with another's. I really hate rules, and loud motorcycles, however stupid, do not bother me. Load rap music does though (the only rap I like is "Two Tennis Shoes in a Dryer").
Refusing vaccinations is pretty dumb. Seems like those that do, should be ready for forced quarantine if they contract a controlled disease. That seems perfectly fair, and making their freedom a much more modest impact on everyone else's.
Eviscerating a goat is a good one. One could champion the goat, but that is another big philosophical dilemma. (I for one would, because I think humans are overwhelmingly arrogant in our opinions of genetic superiority and soul-nonsense). However, one might do so as part of a druid practice. Other than hearing the goat bleating (they bleat, right?), which could fall into the acoustic limit, it seems there is little to affect another other than a subtle knowledge of the going's on. This one is tougher. Similarly would be neighbors that engage in sex in their publicly-viewable yard. Perhaps these both should be addressed through social pressure (like the offenders are applying, rather than government intervention).

Such a good question. I have to keep thinking about this. Thank you.

Jan, I love your comment about "everyone owns land under an allodial title".
In my neck of the woods, that describes my situation here in Texas, although everyone has at least 10X 10 acres plus. However, there is an occasional obnoxious person who simply does not 'get it' regarding where his rights end. We are afterall, a group of people who migrated away from the likes of a "Baltimore" where we don't believe disagreements should be reacted with burning down unassociated business's so we can get freebies at the expense of others all in the name of "protest".
So getting back to our hypothetical situation where a neighbor violates anothers right to freedom.
In Texas, we have an enormous amount of peer pressure. Crude, but effective. If, for example, someone wants to blast ghetto music on our boundary line towards our houses, we would reply with something equally as obnoxious, as in Tex Ritter catterwalling broadcasted at several hundred decibels back at him.
No vaccinations, no problem. We would offer to help load the dudes groceries with chicken poop on our hands. The brave among us would pick our nose while doing so.
Eviserating goats is a tuffy for me. I truly love cabrito, but have Alpine dairy goats that are my personal pets, besides supplying my milk and cheese. But I do slaughter for the freezer an occasional one, but only the ugly ones, the ones my wife don't name. So as long as the neighbor leaves all my goats alone, and only has his way with his own goats, ain't none of my business.
Bottom line, with the limited government concept we so desire, we all deal with our interpersonal relationships "mano un mano". That runs the gamut from raising our children (It does NOT take a village) to dealing with debt, trespassers, and charity.
We don't need or want a distant govenrment telling us the safest way to wipe our butts, in other words.
YMMV

In the case of disease, the common cold can kill some, the peanut and its derivatives can kill some, the sexual transmission of certain Herpes virus can cause cancer and kill some, we could go on and on with this logic, I suspect into the thousands of examples. I'm not arguing that any of that is a good thing, it just is.

In a world, or society of humans based on rational and logical reasoning, I suspect or think that taking advantage of a small pox vaccine is something that the majority of people would do voluntarily. I know I've had four such applications, though none ever took. But it must ultimately be the individual's choice. That doesn't stop the rest refusing to have anything to do with that individual based on his choices and actions.

Child abuse is a bit of a ramping up, but I think that it falls well within the realm of the Objectivist ideal of what a proper government is for--to apply retributive and defensive force against those that initiate force against other humans. And even though I like some goats, my neighbors are free to do with their goats what they will. Our laws and rules have no business being applied against the entire animal kingdom or we're still EPAing.