Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Destroying the view

This post has 19 Replies | 7 Followers

Top 100 Contributor
Posts 850
Points 27,940
Eugene Posted: Sat, Dec 8 2012 2:10 AM

Let's say that a person in a free society carves a huge depiction of Hitler on a mountain range (like Rushmoore) or perhaps carves out some other despicable sight such as a giant ass or a porn act. Can people demand that he removes these carvings? After all everyone likes to enjoy the mountain view as previously.

  • | Post Points: 65
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 814
Points 16,290

From an NAP perspective, I guess it depends on whose property it is.  The fact that some people would be offended doesn't mean that everyone would be and people are responsible for their own emotions... if the person who owned the mountain wasn't definitely agressing against anyone or property he didn't own, then I guess it would be okay in a free society.

By "free society" I'm assuming you mean stateless where those things along with everything else are privately owned.

BTW, Stalin and Churchill were even worse than Hilter.

Good thread though, 5 Stars from me: )

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 539
Points 11,275

BTW, Stalin and Churchill were even worse than Hilter.

Worse at what? What are you on about? Who's Hilter?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 850
Points 27,940
Eugene replied on Sat, Dec 8 2012 4:35 AM

You can't own a mountain (unless it is artificial). At most you can own the carvings.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745

You can homestead the face of a mountain by carving it.

And no, according to NAP, you can't force him to change it.

You have to remember that there is no social rule that will please every single person's tastes all the time. That's the Nirvana fallacy.

So no, following property rights, you can't make them remove it.

Now, what are the chances that this happens? Not high. And there could be social ostracism involved.

If this is the worst offense of the NAP, so be it :P

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 470
Points 7,025
Vitor replied on Sat, Dec 8 2012 8:51 AM

It's ok to say that Stalin is worse than Hitler, but Churchill? I'm not saying he is the super cool guy that the mainstream paints, but worse than Hitler? Plz.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,711
Points 29,285

All of those guys did some pretty crappy stuff but I'm not sure I'd say that Churchill was worse than Hitler or Stalin.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 219
Points 3,980

Eugene:
After all everyone likes to enjoy the mountain view as previously.

I enjoyed the Simpsons through season 9, but didn't like where it went after that.  Do I have a right to demand that the writers go back to the old formula for writing the show?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 151
Points 2,705

About Churchill, I'm not sure what No2statism's reasons are, but I can conceive of the argument being made that he was worse than Hitler and Stalin depending on your view of the true causes of World War II.

Putting aside the image of him as our heroic ally, he may well have turned what was a local affair between Germany and Poland into a true "world" war for political gain. Hitler didn't want a major European war and made generous offers for peace with the UK, even offering to commit German troops to help defend the British Empire, which Churchill did not want to hear. The reason being, Churchill had been a military failure up to that point so rather than swallow his pride and negotiate with Hitler, he wanted a major war. It's also argued that he was the one who really initiated the civilian bombings during the Battle of Britain. He also supposedly diverted food from India for the war effort leading to millions of Indians starving to death. Lastly, it is said that in a drunken stupor, Churchill wanted to initiate the use of poison gas and maybe bioweapons against the Germans but was only convinced not to do so for strategic reasons, not moral ones.

I'm not saying this is necessarily true, but I've heard these arguments made when studying WWII.

Back on topic, I'm curious as well. Can property rights conceivably be applied to things like a "view?" Same with smells and noise pollution.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Sat, Dec 8 2012 11:40 AM
myhumangetsme:

Eugene:
After all everyone likes to enjoy the mountain view as previously.

I enjoyed the Simpsons through season 9, but didn't like where it went after that.  Do I have a right to demand that the writers go back to the old formula for writing the show?

I would say youre well within your rights to make whatever demand you want, as long as there isnt an implied threat.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,360
Points 43,785
z1235 replied on Sat, Dec 8 2012 12:25 PM

Eugene:

Let's say that a person in a free society carves a huge depiction of Hitler on a mountain range (like Rushmoore) or perhaps carves out some other despicable sight such as a giant ass or a porn act. Can people demand that he removes these carvings? After all everyone likes to enjoy the mountain view as previously.

If your gorgeous neighbor grew fat and painted her house pink, can you (or "people") demand that she hit the gym and re-paint her house beige?

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110

Yes. The NAP is srs bsns, but there will be no fat chicks in Libertopia.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 850
Points 27,940
Eugene replied on Sat, Dec 15 2012 12:55 PM

Okay, imagine you live a village or a small town which overlooks a beautiful forest. You enjoy the smell coming from that forest and you often travel near the edge of the forest and admire its beauty.

One day a company comes and cuts all the trees, leaving an empty land. The climate becomes more arid. The sound of birds is replaced by sounds of wood chopping machines. Your estate dramatically decreases in price since you are no longer live in the forest.

Can you really do nothing about it? After all you can't homestead the forest just for the view and the smell.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Sat, Dec 15 2012 1:00 PM

Homestead it and turn it into a park or something.

Either way, you have no right to price of property. You have a right to property. Price is a reflection of other people's opinions. You have no right to those.

On the issue of noise - you might have some sort of claim there.

On the issue of the climate - I'm not quite sure.

The birds - yeah, sorry, but those are probably not covered.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 850
Points 27,940
Eugene replied on Sat, Dec 15 2012 1:07 PM

I know the theory Wheylous I just don't find it satisfying. I don't want to be start a park business just to save the forest. I want the wood chopper company to consider my wishes as well. Some sort of view/sound/smells/climate rights might be in order. After all these are scarce resources.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,360
Points 43,785
z1235 replied on Sat, Dec 15 2012 1:12 PM

Eugene:
After all you can't homestead the forest just for the view and the smell.

Then perhaps you and your neighbors better homestead it for something more than the view and the smells (say, walks, mushroom picking, flower picking, hunting, etc.) -- or buy it from the owner who did -- ahead of the lumber company. If the forest was already owned by someone while you enjoyed the views and the smells, consider those as freebies, subsidies, positive externalities. If you sufficiently valued the views and smells then it may have been be a good idea to save up and perhaps buy the forest from its current owner to ensure that you get to enjoy the views and smells uninterrupted. Or maybe buy an easement from him guaranteeing that those trees will never be cut down. If not, then the owner is at liberty to do whatever he wants with his property up to and including stopping with the free subsidy (views and smells) he has been providing you all these years. 

Just like the pretty neighbor in a beige house stopped its free subsidy to you by becoming fat and painting its house pink. 

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 850
Points 27,940
Eugene replied on Sat, Dec 15 2012 1:58 PM

According to the homesteading theory If you walked in the forest or even picked flowers it doesn't mean you have ownership over the trees. So according to this theory the lumber company can still chop them down. But you wouldn't walk anymore in a deserted area, so your standard of living has decreased without compensation.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,360
Points 43,785
z1235 replied on Sat, Dec 15 2012 2:32 PM

Your standard of living decreased without compensation when your pretty neighbor got fat and painted her house pink, too. C'est la vie. I submit that your standard of living would still be far higher than under a ruler consistently enforcing any "solutions" to this "problem". 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
DanielMuff replied on Sun, Dec 16 2012 11:06 AM

Your standard of living went down when your girlfriend left you for your neighbor after he bought a Porsche.

 

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."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 371
Points 5,590

 

If the free society looks anything like the real world we will have these organizations:

- the claimer of the aforementioned right to display a mountain image and those backing up his rightful claim 

- the people pissed off by the view of such image and those backing their rightful complain

- and people that don't give a single fuck about these shenanigans

 

How the whole thing is gonna playout will depend largely on the goals, dispositions and resourcefulness of the main interest groups, aswell as any other strategic factors and unexpected event that might come to affect the expectations of these parties.

Only these circumstances can determine whether it will be rational for any party involved to settle by an act of kindness and acceptance of one part towards the other, too seek a compromise on some aesthetic common ground, to ask for some monetary compensation, to invoke procedures of court litigation and third party arbitration, to launch a public defamation initiative, to plot sabbotage operations, to perform an assassination attempt, to carry out terrorist acts, to deploy a preemptive nuclear strike or to declare a full blown total warfare campaign of complete annihilation.

 

 

"Blood alone moves the wheels of history" - Dwight Schrute
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (20 items) | RSS