I am a blossoming anarcho-capitalist and my friend is a Huckabee-type republican. Today we were having a discussion about local governments and he asked me the following:
"Let's say you have lived in a neighborhood for years and your next-door neighbor Jim (who just moved in a week ago) insists upon publicly expressing his anti-Semitic views. On his front yard he has erected a giant Nazi flag with a swastika symbol, he has 'Death to the Jews' painted in large, red letters all over his house, etc. You are have been trying to sell your house for months and since Jim has moved in you have noticed the price of your home has drastically dropped by X dollars, presumably due to his self-expression."
Would it be unjust for me, a libertarian, to petition for government involvement in this conflict on the grounds that my neighbor has 'harmed' me by the amount of X dollars? In an anarco-capitalist society how would this problem be dealt with?
I was at a loss for words and would appreciate the help of the forum. Thanks.
capitalist: I am a blossoming anarcho-capitalist and my friend is a Huckabee-type republican. Today we were having a discussion about local governments and he asked me the following: "Let's say you have lived in a neighborhood for years and your next-door neighbor Jim (who just moved in a week ago) insists upon publicly expressing his anti-Semitic views. On his front yard he has erected a giant Nazi flag with a swastika symbol, he has 'Death to the Jews' painted in large, red letters all over his house, etc. You are have been trying to sell your house for months and since Jim has moved in you have noticed the price of your home has drastically dropped by X dollars, presumably due to his self-expression." Would it be unjust for me, a libertarian, to petition for government involvement in this conflict on the grounds that my neighbor has 'harmed' me by the amount of X dollars? In an anarco-capitalist society how would this problem be dealt with? I was at a loss for words and would appreciate the help of the forum. Thanks.
What is ironic about this is that the Nazis were the government.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Daniel: What is ironic about this is that the Nazis were the government.
Straw man fallacy. Hitler was a Christian, but that does not condemn Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
As a Jew, this is one instance where I might be inclined to turn to some form of local government for help in alleviating the problem.
Even though I know my libertarian instincts should say otherwise, as a Jew this would be pretty unacceptable to me.
bloomj31: As a Jew, this is one instance where I might be inclined to turn to some form of local government for help in alleviating the problem. Even though I know my libertarian instincts should say otherwise, as a Jew this would be pretty unacceptable to me.
That is collectivists thinking.
capitalist: Daniel: What is ironic about this is that the Nazis were the government. Straw man fallacy. Hitler was a Christian, but that does not condemn Christianity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
Are you saying that I committed a straw man fallacy?
Daniel: That is collectivists thinking.
Maybe so. But I'd probably still do it.
You have no right to the "value" of your house. No one has any right to the value of anything- everything in this world will always go up and down in value. Your neighbor hasn't harmed you by X amount of dollars- you failed to convince buyers that its still worth it to pay X dollars for your house despite your fun-loving neighbor. What if your neighbor had erected a different kind of giant flag and suddenly the price of your home went up because buyers wanted to get into that neighborhood? Would you be compensating your neighbor for helping to increase the value of your home? I don't think so.
Well, it would be unjust if you or the government coerced Jim into not being able to express his ideology on his own property. Coercion is definately against libertarian principles. Although Jim is devalueing your property, I don't think that justifies you forcing him to change his lawn to bring the price of your property back up. On the other hand, if you stand to profit, I'm not sure why you could not compromise (with the use of money, for example). Maybe there is something you could offer that has higher utility to Jim than keeping his Nazi flag on display in public (at least, until you sell the house).
1. Likelihood? This is not only rare, but almost unheard of, and quite frankly let us flip the coin, I farm my property and create Humus through composting, some people may not like it and through those people the price of neighboring properties would go down, does that mean the state has a right to order me to cease and desist? The real issue is, are pleasant neighbors more important than freedom?
2. Shave your head, go to an Aryan Nation Meeting and sell your house to Jim's Buddies, they will pay top Dollar. In all honesty, that is precisely what I would do, I am already bald...
The percieved value of your home based on your neighbors is not them "harming you" (in my opinion) as your property is yours and theirs is theirs, you just need to find the market participant that will pay the value you will accept for your home...
The only purpose of involving the government in your issue would be to use force to coerce someone else, this is inherently wrong and in the case that you did I personally would applaude Jim in seeking remuneration against you, despite the fact I personally abhore his personal expression...
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
bloomj31:Maybe so. But I'd probably still do it.
Not Surprising Mr. Bloom...
Harry Felker: 1. Likelihood? This is not only rare, but almost unheard of, and quite frankly let us flip the coin, I farm my property and create Humus through composting, some people may not like it and through those people the price of neighboring properties would go down, does that mean the state has a right to order me to cease and desist? The real issue is, are pleasant neighbors more important than freedom?
It's actually not unlikely. It doesn't have to be in the form of a Nazi flag. The big tree in front of my house probably devalues my neighbor's property, as does the "welfare" housing next to my mother's more up-scale housing complex. I know of one guy who painted his house pink, with the express intent of lowering the value of his neighbors' houses (there was some type of argument going on beforehand). So, these types of incidents are not rare or unheard of.
But, I agree that there is absolutely no logical case that can be made to not allow them to do what they want on their own property.
Harry Felker: Not Surprising Mr. Bloom...
WB Mr. Felker.
Would it be unjust for a Jew to give the guy a beatdown? I'd claim self-defense, seeing as the words "Death to the Jews" painted on the wall present a clear case of a threat to use force. At least that's what I'd say if I was the Jew's attorney.
free paradigm blog ::: free paradigm on youtube
I think his point is that you are forming a nonsensical hypothetical due to the irony. That in anarchist society, there will be groups trying to form (National Socialist) governments. Which is nonsensical, because an anarchist society is one in which problems are no longer solved in this manner. Either through so many people being unwilling to support the political system through taxation or due to the complete failure of such a system otherwise to operate.
it remains to be seen, why -- if a society has so many anarchist that it would become anarchistic -- anyone would find it worthwhile to preach national socialism or be able to find a home in a neighborhood that knows these views lower property values (as well as disrupt the libertarianism of that community).
It is not reductio ad hitlerum, since your hypothetical actually includes Hitlerites. And so his particular philosophy is relevant. His philosophy is one of statism. Which is incompatible with anarchist communities.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: But, I agree that there is absolutely no logical case that can be made to not allow them to do what they want on their own property.
How far, exactly, do property rights extend?Let's say the nazi flag was only an inch from my property and was so large that it cast my house in the shade, depriving me of sunlight?
Yes, the flag is technically on his property, but aren't the realms of his property vs my property vs public property (i.e. air and sunlight) not so clearly defined?
I would deny that my hypothetical is nonsensical. Exaggerated, yes, but similar instances of conflicts between neighbors are painfully common. Please do not shy away from the point at hand by deeming the hypothetical too extreme and therefore not worth considering.
capitalist:Would it be unjust for me, a libertarian, to petition for government involvement in this conflict on the grounds that my neighbor has 'harmed' me by the amount of X dollars?
capitalist:In an anarco-capitalist society how would this problem be dealt with?
Likelihood in the sense that the majority of property owners are not purposely making a display of their homes in such a manner that devalue the properties around them...
But we agree that there is no logical case for oppressing the property owner on his own property....
Is that not the most important thing? :o)
I was never gone, just reading and busy with other projects....
I do note however that not much has changed around here...
capitalist: Jonathan M. F. Catalán: But, I agree that there is absolutely no logical case that can be made to not allow them to do what they want on their own property. How far, exactly, do property rights extend?Let's say the nazi flag was only an inch from my property and was so large that it cast my house in the shade, depriving me of sunlight? Yes, the flag is technically on his property, but aren't the realms of his property vs my property vs public property (i.e. air and sunlight) not so clearly defined?
This might help explain the sunlight thing. (I didn't read it but am familiar with his position on ad cœlum.)
Your scenario is possible. Is it more likely than that people would join into some sort of homeowner association to prevent situations like this though? I think not.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
capitalist:How far, exactly, do property rights extend?
To the extent of his property...
capitalist:Let's say the nazi flag was only an inch from my property and was so large that it cast my house in the shade, depriving me of sunlight?
Lets take the heinous out of this please...
Would you have the same issue if someone had a solar collector that deprived you of sunlight?
How about Jim decides to buy the properties surrounding your house and surrounds your house in a large fence to protect his privacy, are you going to claim you have a right to view natural events (sunset) if it were to happen on the other side of Jim's Fence?
capitalist:Yes, the flag is technically on his property, but aren't the realms of his property vs my property vs public property (i.e. air and sunlight) not so clearly defined?
The Flag is on his property, period, there is no technically about it...
His property ends at his property line as does yours...
There is no such thing as Public Property, just owned, unowned and unobtainable...
It would seem that there are many anti-semitic people today.
And the state protects them.
Most of them today, even if they sadly hold onto such beliefs, probably hide inflammatory language for the fear of losing employment in a world that ostracizes such idiots. Which is amplified by Jewish groups: because it needs to be and because they know people will listen and be outraged. They would also lose business and any sort of human capital which provides a safety net in society.
In an anarchist society, they would most likely lose protection from dispute agencies. Would be unable to get insurance. Due to reputation being key to these companies wanting to cover you; and of course, the consent of these companies (and their own values) taken into consideration. Would probably not be able to continue a contract in a community that wants explicit rules on inner-community safety, values, and so forth. In a sense they would be marginalized.
You have to understand that most skinheads can barely even get jobs in the current world. Where they can sue for discrimination. In a world where no such rules exist, they will be screwed. This is why they choose white national socialism over markets. They know that mixing of races and markets ruins their cabal.
In a libertarian society, in many cases you would be able to control such actions through some sort of homeowners' association. I would say that it's wrong to petition the government though.
Political Atheists Blog
the government is evil and should be abolished.
in using 'jew haters' to justify 'jew hater oppressors' i.e. the state.
your 'friend' has found a way to place the blame for the necessary persistance of the state at the feet of ........ jews.
jews yet again are the root cause of the evils of this world.
he is an anti-semite.
good-day
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Could you please elaborate on this? How would the "some sort of homeowners association" coerce my neighbor into lowering his nazi flag?
What if the neighbor's actions caused the value of your house to go up, because now someone is willing to pay top dollar to be neighbors with a Nazi-lover?
I think you have missed the point. The issue is not about which views my neighbor is expressing (it could be 'death to whites, blacks, gays, red-heads, tall people, libertarians, etc), but the fact that his self expression on his property a) makes me worse off because no one wants to buy a house next to him and b) is generally regarded as incredibly hurtful and offensive.
nirgrahamUK:he is an anti-semite.
Most Certainly
Daniel: What if the neighbor's actions caused the value of your house to go up, because now someone is willing to pay top dollar to be neighbors with a Nazi-lover?
Ignoring the fact that such an occurrence incredibly unlikely, what is your point?
On the issue of free speech, should a pervert be allowed to go to a public place in which there are children and whip his genitals out? Would this not warrant legitimate state intervention, even though it is self-expression and not infringing on anyone's property rights?
nirgrahamUK: the government is evil and should be abolished. in using 'jew haters' to justify 'jew hater oppressors' i.e. the state. your 'friend' has found a way to place the blame for the necessary persistance of the state at the feet of ........ jews. jews yet again are the root cause of the evils of this world. he is an anti-semite. good-day
(sorry for the double post)
I gave a joke answer, because i don't take the question seriously. someone is rude...suck it up. the market price of your property changes for any reason. if you can anticipate it or insure against it and you want to for the cost. go to it. if you dont or you can't, thats just life.
freedom and prosperity should not be junked just because not everyone likes what everyone else does.
capitalist: Daniel: What if the neighbor's actions caused the value of your house to go up, because now someone is willing to pay top dollar to be neighbors with a Nazi-lover? Ignoring the fact that such an occurrence incredibly unlikely, what is your point?
Should that be allowed?
On the issue of free speech, should a pervert be allowed to go to a public place in which there are children and whip his genitals out?
I didn't know it was possible to speak with genitals.
Would this not warrant legitimate state intervention, even though it is self-expression and not infringing on anyone's property rights?
How is it not infringing on anyone's property rights? What is your definition of "public place" in an anarchic society? Why wouldn't the owner of the "public place" make it an offense to show genitals to children?
nirgrahamUK: I gave a joke answer, because i don't take the question seriously. someone is rude...suck it up. the market price of your property changes for any reason. if you can anticipate it or insure against it and you want to for the cost. go to it. if you dont or you can't, thats just life. freedom and prosperity should not be junked just because not everyone likes what everyone else does.
I wonder if tomorrow your new neighbor painted in huge letters on his house "death to niggers and kikes" you would hesitate for a second to use gov't intervention to coerce him into removing the words. I certainly would out of fear for a drop in my home's value as well as my children seeing such words.
Daniel,
I believe exposing certain parts of your body can be considered self-expression, yes. And I am concerned about if such a thing happened tomorrow, not in a theoretical anarchic society. If I were to see a man on public property tomorrow exposing his junk to children, would it be wrong for me to get the state involved?
capitalist: nirgrahamUK: I gave a joke answer, because i don't take the question seriously. someone is rude...suck it up. the market price of your property changes for any reason. if you can anticipate it or insure against it and you want to for the cost. go to it. if you dont or you can't, thats just life. freedom and prosperity should not be junked just because not everyone likes what everyone else does. I wonder if tomorrow your new neighbor painted in huge letters on his house "death to niggers and kikes" you would hesitate for a second to use gov't intervention to coerce him into removing the words. I certainly would out of fear for a drop in my home's value as well as my children seeing such words.
What if government intervention forced "niggers" to pick cotton and segregated them from the rest of society? What if government intervention forced "kikes" to abandon their homes and property, and forced them to work in labor camps? What if government intervention dropped nukes on "Japs"? What if government intervention napalmed "Viet-congs"? What if government intervention starved millions of millions in China and the Soviet Union? What if government intervention blew up "sand niggers" with surgical precision?
capitalist: Daniel, I believe exposing certain parts of your body can be considered self-expression, yes. And I am concerned about if such a thing happened tomorrow, not in a theoretical anarchic society. If I were to see a man on public property tomorrow exposing his junk to children, would it be wrong for me to get the state involved?
Then blame the state. After all, they were in charge of making sure it didn't happen.
capitalist: I wonder if tomorrow your new neighbor painted in huge letters on his house "death to niggers and kikes" you would hesitate for a second to use gov't intervention to coerce him into removing the words. I certainly would out of fear for a drop in my home's value as well as my children seeing such words.
lol... and what if aliens come down and make word clouds in the sky over my house if there wasn't a government around to force people to cough up the money to shoot those buggers down we all wouldn't be in this position and live happily ever happen.
bend
now cough.
Daniel: capitalist: Daniel, I believe exposing certain parts of your body can be considered self-expression, yes. And I am concerned about if such a thing happened tomorrow, not in a theoretical anarchic society. If I were to see a man on public property tomorrow exposing his junk to children, would it be wrong for me to get the state involved? Then blame the state. After all, they were in charge of making sure it didn't happen.
So you're saying it is legitimate for the state to preemptively outlaw me from showing my genitals to people?
lol @ this thread.