I was wondering what your thoughts on this scenario:
There are 2 neighbours. 1 Neighbour is cooking a curry, due to the spices involved the smell of the cooking is spreading over the street and into neighbour two's property. Neighbour two does not like the smell and it is on their private property. What should they do?
Neighbour 2 could negogiate with neighbour 1 over cooking times, but neighbour 1 is Indian and cooks curry all the time. Neighbour 2 could sue neighbour 1 for violating their property rights (this is done under the assumption that we have fully functioning justice systems and property rights) and get compensation. But should neighbour 1 have to pay neighbour 2 to simply cook their own food?
For the sake of arguement lets assume their is no technological solution to this problem, what is to be done then? It is clear that some sort of property right is being violated but doing something also seems unreasonable.
No property right is being violated.
Rothbard's paper on the law and air pollution deals with this. I can't recall but I think he mentions the common law might treat this as a nuissance. Anarchistic law presumably would be a form of common law.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
I'd say (and I think Rothbard would agree:P), that it depends on who was living there first, and what 'servitudes' belong with the property.
If neighbour A was cooking the curry all his life in his garden, and the previous owner of neighbours B land didn't have a problem with it, it could be argued that A can do it. B was misinformed (or not informed at all) by the guy he bought the land from, but thats gives B a claim against the that guy, not A (or not, depending on the agreement).
If on the other hand A just moved in, and nobody else ever did cook in curry in the region, he has no right to do it unless other neighbours agree.
It's like living next to the railroad - you just can't move in and say: come on, stop that damn train! On the other hand the train company doesn't have the right to start making window-shaking noise right next to the place you've been living at for the last ten years:P
The only problem that would have to be solved with typical common law, would be if both men moved in at the same time.
wow thank you. That was a concise yet excellent answer.
If I want, I can plant flowers in my yard. Maybe you like the smell, maybe you don't. But that you don't like the smell does not mean your property rights have been violated. The physical integrity or location of your property must be negatively impacted for that.
Knight_of_BAAWA:The physical integrity or location of your property must be negatively impacted for that.
That argument may have a logical premise, but in the real world aesthetics and smell matter a great deal to property values.
HEY! No talking about the real world!
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
I'm moving in two months, and will test out my new property rights. I cook vegetarian curries at least once a week, and they can get very pungent.
Mr. Karla: I'd say (and I think Rothbard would agree:P), that it depends on who was living there first, and what 'servitudes' belong with the property. If neighbour A was cooking the curry all his life in his garden, and the previous owner of neighbours B land didn't have a problem with it, it could be argued that A can do it. B was misinformed (or not informed at all) by the guy he bought the land from, but thats gives B a claim against the that guy, not A (or not, depending on the agreement). If on the other hand A just moved in, and nobody else ever did cook in curry in the region, he has no right to do it unless other neighbours agree. It's like living next to the railroad - you just can't move in and say: come on, stop that damn train! On the other hand the train company doesn't have the right to start making window-shaking noise right next to the place you've been living at for the last ten years:P The only problem that would have to be solved with typical common law, would be if both men moved in at the same time.
I don't think Rothbard would agree but point to the fact that a smell is not a physical aggression. And I also think even if noone has ever cooked with garlic before, that would not make me a criminal doing so.
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
Yep. And given that libertarianism will involve courts at common law, it's hard to dismiss the possiblity of it being treated as an act of aggression. All that is at stake is whether or not there have been rights homesteaded for the emission of the scent in question.
nhaag:a smell is not a physical aggression.
Please think this sort of thing through. Ridicule, noxious odor, shock and fright, and offensive sights can all be employed aggressively.
Knight_of_BAAWA:If I want, I can plant flowers in my yard
If I want, I can plant flowers in my yard
Sure you can. Just stop sending those particles into my nose. My land was always particle free, and it's gonna stay that way! [...well, we're civilized men, let's settle this out like civilized men do. I take cheques.]
Or do you believe in the smell fairy? Or are smells purely subjective creations of the mind? ;)
As for Rothbard, I remember reading somewhere, that he used the term 'servitudes' for rights acquired when you buy physical property.. Sorry, no time to go through Ethics of Liberty, the Manifesto etc.:P If somebody remembers where it was, I'd be much obliged. Or maybe I'm mixing it up with somebody else. Nonetheless...
The property always exists in some - let's call it - context. You can not homestead a piece of land next to the railroad and order the trains to stop running, yet somebody every three hours is obviously negatively impacting your property.
I don't think any rights have been violated. If I put a car up on blocks in my front yard, and I live next to you, it will both harm your view and probably diminish your property value. However, it won't constitute aggression against you. There are certain hazards that come with living near to another person's house. You just need to accept those risks. You should have no recourse to stop them or collect compensation just because you don't like the smell. Here's a suggestion: learn to like curry. I love curry, myself.
Byzantine:That argument may have a logical premise, but in the real world aesthetics and smell matter a great deal to property values.
You have no right to any specific property value, as it is subjective.
Mr. Karla:Sure you can. Just stop sending those particles into my nose.
And here we've delved into the stupidity of "externalities". I don't think I have to give you the run-down on it.
Mr. Karla:The property always exists in some - let's call it - context. You can not homestead a piece of land next to the railroad and order the trains to stop running, yet somebody every three hours is obviously negatively impacting your property.
The physicality of your property was neither harmed nor moved, so there's no issue.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Knight_of_BAAWA:The physical integrity or location of your property must be negatively impacted for that. Byzantine:That argument may have a logical premise, but in the real world aesthetics and smell matter a great deal to property values. You have no right to any specific property value, as it is subjective.
He never said anyone had a right to a specific property value. That is a strawman.
He's saying that the value is determined SUBJECTIVELY by aesthetics and smell can matter in that scenario. Which is what you wrote, only his is a better response because it is specific to the thread topic.
Knight_of_BAAWA:You have no right to any specific property value, as it is subjective.
liberty student:He never said anyone had a right to a specific property value.
It is the question he begs; ergo, it is not a strawman.
liberty student:He's saying that the value is determined SUBJECTIVELY by aesthetics and smell can matter in that scenario.
That's not how I read it.
Knight_of_BAAWA:It is the question he begs; ergo, it is not a strawman.
You really use and abuse the "begging the question" line whenever you make a strawman.
In the future, you might want to stick to what someone writes, not what you think they meant. You can also post requesting clarification, the strawmen dumb down the conversation and derail the subject matter.
Knight_of_BAAWA:That's not how I read it.
A link for you then.
liberty student:You really use and abuse the "begging the question" line whenever you make a strawman.
You need to take Intro to Philosophy or Intro to Logic so that you can understand what fallacies are. Until you can demonstrate that you actually know anything about fallacies, I shall dismiss your pathetic attempts as mere posing. And do not make me taunt you a second time-a.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap