Mr. Karla: But wait, does this mean, that you agree with the rest of my posts? Just the ownership of gastrointestinals was a problem? lol.
But wait, does this mean, that you agree with the rest of my posts? Just the ownership of gastrointestinals was a problem? lol.
No. Your whole position violates the self-ownership principle. It requires a concession that you partially own the property of everyone around you, because without that ownership you have no right to restrict the actions they take on it.
If there is physical harm being committed, then it is they who are violating your ownership of your property. But annoyance is not physical harm. The necessary conclusion of your position is that a person would have to give you the right to enter their property and destroy anything which emits a smell - effectively that nobody can own something that has a smell, ever. And everything has a smell.
It is wholly incompatible with any notion of property. If you believe that you have an enforceable right not to smell things that you find offensive, you do not believe in any form of ownership except of YOUR ownership over everyone and everything else. If that's what you believe, then don't call yourself a libertarian, because what you are is an unprincipled egoist. Which I still find preferrable to statism - but it is not libertarianism.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Knight_of_BAAWA:And has the physical integrity or location of your property changed?
Mr. Karla:Didn't it?
Nope.
Mr. Karla:If you are right, and it didn't, I can drop of my trash at your place.
Nope, because then you ARE changing the physical integrity of my property.
Mr. Karla:Some strange view on violating property rights you have.
Nope. Just following with Hoppe, actually.
Knight_of_BAAWA:If I walk by your house, fart, and you smell it, have I in some way violated your rights?
Mr. Karla:Of course you did
Of course I didn't.
It disturbs me that an excellent thread on curry has devolved into a thread about farting. Fart vs. Property Rights.
We will never defeat the state when we are focused on farting.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
MacFall: Conza88: Intention is obviously relevent. So it's not absurd. Unless damage has been or is being done, no force is justified. But if a person accidentally causes damage to another's property, they still owe them for that damage. No, intention is entirely irrelevant. There are smells out there that make people gag, and vomit automatically. If gagging and vomiting are involved, then there is a case for physical harm, and hence aggression.
Conza88: Intention is obviously relevent. So it's not absurd.
Intention is obviously relevent. So it's not absurd.
Unless damage has been or is being done, no force is justified. But if a person accidentally causes damage to another's property, they still owe them for that damage. No, intention is entirely irrelevant.
There are smells out there that make people gag, and vomit automatically.
If gagging and vomiting are involved, then there is a case for physical harm, and hence aggression.
Well, under Criminal Law it is relevent.
Guess that is irrelevant though.
I know!
I was thinking that the smell of the curry would be held up as being similar to pollution, as opposed to farting.
Conza88: Criminal Law it is relevent. Guess that is irrelevant though.
Criminal Law it is relevent.
It's certainly not relevant to me. Criminal "law" is just words on paper. I thought we were talking about property rights.
garagemc: I was thinking that the smell of the curry would be held up as being similar to pollution, as opposed to farting.
I believe the difference between harm (pollution) and annoyance (bad smells) has been clearly defined in this thread. The curry consitutes the latter.
MacFall: If an unpleasant odor is an act of aggression, then everyone has an obligation not to have B.O. or fart in the presence of anyone else. That's absurd. Unless physical harm can be proven, the offense is in the realm of minutiae, in which the law has no place.
I agree, it's a policy decision. But offensive touchings and indecent exposure don't inflict physical harm nor does emotional cruelty. Obviously, it's cost-prohibitive to allow little old ladies to sue people because they say "Damn!" But again, it's just a policy choice and at some point the consensus will build for banning certain harmful activities that don't result in actual physical harm. The violation of another person's peace of mind (which I'm sure you'll agree is as much "yours" as anything else is) is still there.
Now, I know anarchists like to preach that nobody has a right to property value but the fact is that people are going to take action if you decide to leave the carcasses of dead animals on your front lawn. Thus, they will form neighborhood associations and you'll have to covenant not to perform certain activities if you want to live there.
Or you can just buy the vacant lot next to the aluminum smelter and nobody will complain when you let the junk pile up. In fact, I think that's probably where most anarchists will end up living their dream: down by the aluminum smelter and turpentine refinery where the sewage from all the higher value properties empties out.
Byzantine:I agree, it's a policy decision. But offensive touchings and indecent exposure don't inflict physical harm nor does emotional cruelty.
And yet offensive touching violates the personal property right of the person. So you should rethink your wording.
Byzantine:Now, I know anarchists like to preach that nobody has a right to property value but the fact is that people are going to take action if you decide to leave the carcasses of dead animals on your front lawn.
And the fact is that nobody has a right to any specific property value, just like no one has any right to any specific market share.
Knight_of_BAAWA: And the fact is that nobody has a right to any specific property value, just like no one has any right to any specific market share.
It is an abstract argument, and it may even be a logically correct one, but that's all it is. In the real world, people use the means at their disposal to protect the value of their property, just as they use the means at their disposal to protect their market share.
Knight_of_BAAWA: And yet offensive touching violates the personal property right of the person. So you should rethink your wording.
But no physical harm was inflicted, so according to the "physical harm" test the touching is not actionable.
Byzantine:But no physical harm was inflicted, so according to the "physical harm" test the touching is not actionable.
And who says that's the only test, hmmmm?
Byzantine:It is an abstract argument, and it may even be a logically correct one, but that's all it is.
That's all that's necessary.
MacFall: Mr. Karla: But wait, does this mean, that you agree with the rest of my posts? Just the ownership of gastrointestinals was a problem? lol. It requires a concession that you partially own the property of everyone around you, because without that ownership you have no right to restrict the actions they take on it.
It requires a concession that you partially own the property of everyone around you, because without that ownership you have no right to restrict the actions they take on it.
No it doesn't. Read my two first posts on the topic. I stated how I suppose the problem should be delt with. I think I'm gonna waist some time to find Rothbard on "servitudes" to back me up with an ex cathedra argument:P
MacFall: If there is physical harm being committed, then it is they who are violating your ownership of your property. But annoyance is not physical harm.
If there is physical harm being committed, then it is they who are violating your ownership of your property. But annoyance is not physical harm.
Are, or are not smells physical entities? Do you disagree, that placing a physical entity on my property IS physical harm? What's the difference between small particles of odor, and biger particles of - lets say - sand? You wouldn't allow me to drop sand on your property, would you?
MacFall: The necessary conclusion of your position is that a person would have to give you the right to enter their property and destroy anything which emits a smell - effectively that nobody can own something that has a smell, ever. And everything has a smell. It is wholly incompatible with any notion of property. If you believe that you have an enforceable right not to smell things that you find offensive, you do not believe in any form of ownership except of YOUR ownership over everyone and everything else. If that's what you believe, then don't call yourself a libertarian, because what you are is an unprincipled egoist. Which I still find preferrable to statism - but it is not libertarianism.
The necessary conclusion of your position is that a person would have to give you the right to enter their property and destroy anything which emits a smell - effectively that nobody can own something that has a smell, ever. And everything has a smell.
:D unprincipled egoism. wow:D
No, I hope it's not incompatible, I think it's necessary, as I tried to explain in my first two posts. Nobody wants to deal with my train analogy:(
Knight_of_BAAWA: Knight_of_BAAWA:And has the physical integrity or location of your property changed? Mr. Karla:Didn't it? Nope. Mr. Karla:If you are right, and it didn't, I can drop of my trash at your place. Nope, because then you ARE changing the physical integrity of my property.
Why do you treat small physical objects (which odor consists of) different then biger objects, like trash? Both are at my place, both are being sent here by someone without my consent. Point me the difference please (except the size of course:P)
Knight_of_BAAWA: Knight_of_BAAWA: And the fact is that nobody has a right to any specific property value, just like no one has any right to any specific market share. Byzantine:It is an abstract argument, and it may even be a logically correct one, but that's all it is. That's all that's necessary.
Agree! (yes, it is possible to agree with someone)
Knight_of_BAAWA:Nope, because then you ARE changing the physical integrity of my property.
Mr. Karla:Why do you treat small physical objects (which odor consists of) different then biger objects, like trash?
Because they're different. Why are you treating them the same?
Oh, and I don't have to ask your consent to fart, which is where your idea leads. So clearly, your argument is wrong.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Mr. Karla:Why do you treat small physical objects (which odor consists of) different then biger objects, like trash? Because they're different. Why are you treating them the same?
I am treating them the same, because I thought that all physical objects are subject to the same rules, property rights apply to physical objects. Also physical integrity is being changed when one uses some physical objects on another other physical objects (or body).
Do you agree with the above statement? If not, then how do you know that leaving trash changes physical integrity, and leaving smaller particles of physical entities does not?
Knight_of_BAAWA:Because they're different. Why are you treating them the same?
Mr. Karla:I am treating them the same, because I thought that all physical objects are subject to the same rules, property rights apply to physical objects. Also physical integrity is being changed when one uses some physical objects on another other physical objects (or body).
Then you must sue the farmer whose cows fart and spew methane into the atmosphere.
And you must of course attempt to sue nature, since dust from outer space lands on earth.
The upshot is: the physical integrity of your property isn't being changed.
Mr. Karla: Are, or are not smells physical entities?
Are, or are not smells physical entities?
Yes, they are.
Do you disagree, that placing a physical entity on my property IS physical harm?
It can be, but is not categorically true.
What's the difference between small particles of odor, and biger particles of - lets say - sand?
Size and airborne mobility - and the provability of physical harm. The movement of the sand cannot happen without the commission of human action in any quantity large enough to cause damage. The crossing of an odor onto your property is the same as if a high wind carried a minute mass of sand from one yard to another - it is an act of nature, not an act of man. In niether case would you have a just claim against the owner of the property from whence the material originated.
Only if the sand were moved directly by a person, or if the quantity were large enough to physically alter your property in a damaging manner, would you have any such claim.
You wouldn't allow me to drop sand on your property, would you?
See above.
That's what it boils down to - you claim a right to use force against the originator of a smell. Everyone and their property has a smell. Ergo, you claim the right to use force against everyone and their property. Except things like pure nitrogen, I guess. That is certainly egoism, and it cannot be principled since under such a paradigm nobody has the right to control property but you. Excluding things like pure nitrogen.
Nobody wants to deal with my train analogy:(
It is not analogous to an odor. It is more analogous to the sand moved by a person onto your property.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Then you must sue the farmer whose cows fart and spew methane into the atmosphere. And you must of course attempt to sue nature, since dust from outer space lands on earth. The upshot is: the physical integrity of your property isn't being changed.
How properly understood property rights would resolve that problem I tried to explain in my first two posts. Somebody has the right to do something, somebody hasn't. Nobody has to sue the farmers (unless they are evil farmers:P), and there can be a lot of cow..., erm, curry cooking.
Nevermind, the trick is you avoid my question.
I repeat it then: How do you know that leaving trash changes physical integrity, and leaving smaller particles of physical entities does not? (Clue: define what do you mean by changes in physical integrity, and then show how the definition applies to bigger objects, but not to smaler)
The answer to this question could be the key to ending this debate and getting back to serious stuff, like abolishing the state, central banking and curry cooking. I hope.
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