Freedom

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]

EXACTLY! That's why I have a right to get rid of the music (or rather a violation of my property rights). I want to do what only concerns my property, however the music my neighbor is playing is stopping that.

[/ QUOTE ]

this isn't the libertarian/austrian position.

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
You are free and no one can force you to labor for them. If you choose not to labor for them, I would suggest laboring for yourself so you can accumulate wealth and perhaps buy some land from its owner. maybe then you can "force" paupers to labor for your enrichment.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am penniless and landless.

Please explain to me how I will "labor for myself" when I have no home, no money, no farmland and no food. The only option I see is not to "labor for myself", but to labor for someone else -- specifically, those who have declared themselves "owners" of the resources without which I cannot physically survive.


q/q

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Distinguish what you just wrote from incredibly offensive imagery that prevents you from being on your porch with your eyes open.


[/ QUOTE ]
Good question. The "offensive imagery" (subjective) is scenary on property that isn't yours. You can't tune out music on your own property, you can decide not to look at a swatsika that's not even on your property.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

EXACTLY! That's why I have a right to get rid of the music (or rather a violation of my property rights). I want to do what only concerns my property, however the music my neighbor is playing is stopping that.

[/ QUOTE ]

this isn't the libertarian/austrian position.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm open to being wrong, what is the libertarian position on this?

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

EXACTLY! That's why I have a right to get rid of the music (or rather a violation of my property rights). I want to do what only concerns my property, however the music my neighbor is playing is stopping that.

[/ QUOTE ]

this isn't the libertarian/austrian position.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm open to being wrong, what is the libertarian position on this?

[/ QUOTE ]



as I have already posted, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem is a favorable mechanism to deal with externalities.

basically there are a bunch of privatization schemes to deal with externalities.

pollution in the air? setup a corporation that owns the air. or more accurately buys the air from the population at large. then whenever anyone pollutes the air, they have to compensate that corporation for damaging their property.

corporations have a strong profit motive. this ensures that pollution is going to go to the highest bidder, ie the cost of pollution to society will not only be internalized into the market, it will also be efficiently allocated within the market.

working the other way, why won't the air owning corporation allow too much pollution. if people start getting lung cancer because of the pollution in the air, the air corporation is liability. the have a strong motive to balance the risks and benefits of pollution. benefit is production of goods, cost is damage to health and the environment at large (which other corporations own/would own)

[ShakeZula06]

Interesting stuff. So what would the solution be for...

a)a neighbor's tree that blocks to much sunlight to grow plants?
b)a neighbor's plant with an objectable smell?
c)a neighbor with an objectable symbol painted on his house?

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting stuff. So would the solution be for...

a)a neighbor's tree that blocks to much sunlight to grow plants
b)a neighbor's plant with an objectable smell
c)a neighbor with an objectable symbol painted on his house.

[/ QUOTE ]
that neighbor pays you money for the right to block the sunlight. or you pay him to cut his tree down. any kind of bargaining really.

alternately, when the neighborhood was constructed and indvidual lots were sold(they may have to be indefinitely leased in a true AC society, kind of murky there), contracts could have been setup from the get go that the owners of the lots agree in advance to a certain tree policy. so only people that voluntary accept their sunlight being blocked move in. at first glance this seems like a rip off of locke and his social contract theory however this has a critical difference. that difference is that these contracts are actually voluntary, nobody is compelled into conforming to the society norms, people group together and voluntarily accept norms.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Distinguish what you just wrote from incredibly offensive imagery that prevents you from being on your porch with your eyes open.


[/ QUOTE ]
Good question. The "offensive imagery" (subjective) is scenary on property that isn't yours. You can't tune out music on your own property, you can decide not to look at a swatsika that's not even on your property.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether music is too loud or invasive is also subjective. The light waves from the swastika come in through your windows, just like sound waves come in through your walls. Saying you can close your eyes, or keep your windows shut, is like saying you can use ear plugs to go to sleep.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
that neighbor pays you money for the right to block the sunlight. or you pay him to cut his tree down. any kind of bargaining really.


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't doubt that in practice this would happen, in fact I agree with it. What I believed though is that ultimately and in the default, this would be looked at as a violation of property rights (this meaning say eccessive noise, or a foul smelling plant) at least according to the libertarian position. Is that incorrect?
[ QUOTE ]
alternately, when the neighborhood was constructed and indvidual lots were sold, contracts could have been setup from the get go that the owners of the lots agree in advance to a certain tree policy. so only people that voluntary accept their sunlight being blocked move in. at first glance this seems like a rip off of locke and his social contract theory however this has a critical difference. that difference is that these contracts are actually voluntary, nobody is compelled into conforming to the society norms, people group together and voluntarily accept norms.

[/ QUOTE ]
I also agree completely with this solution.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Distinguish what you just wrote from incredibly offensive imagery that prevents you from being on your porch with your eyes open.


[/ QUOTE ]
Good question. The "offensive imagery" (subjective) is scenary on property that isn't yours. You can't tune out music on your own property, you can decide not to look at a swatsika that's not even on your property.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether music is too loud or invasive is also subjective. The light waves from the swastika come in through your windows, just like sound waves come in through your walls. Saying you can close your eyes, or keep your windows shut, is like saying you can use ear plugs to go to sleep.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah true. I just see a distinction between say what you can see *if looking at your nieghbor's property* as opposed to anything you have to bear even while doing nothing involving your nieghbor's property (such as your neighbor's music).