I’m starting this thread based on a link that Student shared in a post. My personal, recent attraction to libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism is a strong belief in the idea that it is not ok to take/disrupt someone else’s private property against his or her will. However, Student posted a link that contains a couple examples where it seems difficult to apply that precise principle (the link also contains a few arguments that I feel are weak, so please see the example with the laser beam vs. lamp in the window).
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_41.html
My question is: how do you reconcile the idea of the right to/defense of one’s private property with the example of a neighbor shining a bright laser on someone’s front door (this would seem to certainly be a violation of their property) vs. turning on a lamp in the window which other neighbors can still see (this would seem to not be a violation of their property, but is essentially the same action as the laser but just to lesser degree) ?
I know I’ve only laid out some very basic thoughts and this can be seen as quite a loaded question, but I’d be interested to hear how people reconcile what I think is the foundational principle behind libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism (a right to and defense of one’s private property) with a practical example that seems to make it difficult to apply that exact guiding principle.
If I have a lamp in my window, that doesn't cross their property lines or touch their property. Chances are it's not even bright enough to where they can see the light if they turn their back and face their house. The laser is actually touching the property, and seems rather deliberate also. That's the main difference. The lamp is not a violation at all, while the laser beam is.
Bert,
Looking at this literally, the lamp "touches" the house just as much as the laser "touches" the house. If light can be seen by a neighbor, then by definition, the light is reaching and therefore "touching" the house.
Both cross private property. The only difference is in magnitude. I think my same question still applies.
We can begin to discuss whether it matters that one act is "deliberate" but I think we will find that one's intentions do not, and should not matter in property rights violations.
All of such problems do not magically disappear if you have a State and I think it is obvious that Friedman is not suggesting this. In fact, the problems are usually aggravated by the State not only by interfering in the freedom of people to contractually agree on a set of rules that best suit their own interests and needs given their unique circumstances, but it imposes its own arbitrary rules and values granting special privileges to this group or that group at the expense of the vast majority.
The point is that people most people have a vast self interest in participating in this thing we call society. When not living in isolation, they will contractually set rules and limits, and the laws governing these rules and limits are the same laws that govern all other aspects of voluntary cooperation and the division of labor. The thing about the market process is that it always rewards what is considered “good behavior” and penalizes “bad behavior”. The incentives are properly aligned, and while there can never be perfect harmony between all actors, conflicts are minimized and outcomes are far more efficient and optimal from the point of view of all the participants.
Well the same logic would apply to blaring loud noises on your own property. It's "your" property, you get to do what you want! However it also interferes with other people's property since things like air (the medium of travel with light and sound) are held in common pretty much by definition in any neighborhood. The difference between a laser and a lamp is that while, technically, the light waves are hitting the other's property, it is seen as still being "away" from your property. If you see a laser marking a spot on your property, it feels as if it is directly touching it somehow and seems that the only purpose for shining a laser light on somebody else's property is just to cause problems.
The only difference is in magnitude.
There you go. If the laser reasonably disrupts the owner's use of his property, then the neighbor may be 'aggressing.' Same thing if you substitute flood lights for the laser. Walter Block has argued this while, I believe, pretty much staying within the Rothbardian framework that all rights are property rights, that they are absolute and all that. It is not the physical light wave touching the property, any more than it is the sound vibration that is at issue when the neighbor shuts his door or practices with his rock band. It is about whether the neighbor's actions disrupt the normal use of the person's property.
It is about whether the neighbor's actions disrupt the normal use of the person's property.
According to who? If my neighbor is blind, he may not even notice the laser or the lamp. On the other hand, if my neighbor is a dick, he may insist my lamp is keeping him up at night just to piss me off.
As I see it, if we actually try to apply JH's initial rule, that "it is not ok to take/disrupt someone else’s private property against his or her will", what we see pretty quickly is that how i use my property becomes just as dependent on my neighbor's whims as my own. what's so absolute about that?
--note, i don't plan to fully enter this discussion but will throw out helpful comments where i can--
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
According to who?
Well... according to the property owner. If he's blind, he won't even think to complain; an issue would never arise. If he does anyway, someone informing him about the light, I doubt he would have a case. If he brings non-blind guests over, and the light disrupts his fancy party, there may be a conflict.
Once there's some conflict, the answer is then according to whomever customarily decides these issues. It may be up to a judge, a jury, a neighborhood association, or the town mob to decide who is in the right. What counts as a reasonable disruption of property be hashed out through adjudication and absorbed into custom.
^ but now you're changing the rule. now the rule should read: "it is not ok to take/disrupt someone else’s private property against his or her will--unless a judge/neighbor association/mob says others wise". again, not very absolute.
really, it sounds to me like what you have in mind is more like contractualism (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractualism/), which is not too far removed from utilitarianism, than any sort of "rights" based scheme.
Which i think makes sense. Contractualism (and utilitarianism) has a better chance for realistically directing a libertarian society than some sort of "rights" based scheme for exactly the same reason we are seeing in this thread.
Student:really, it sounds to me like what you have in mind is more like contractualism
A society based on voluntary interpersonal exchange IS a contractual society. That's what the unhampered market is!
A contractual society IS a libertarian/voluntary society.
^ i agree. i was just stressing the point that David Friedman made in the chapter mentioned in the OP. specifically, that simple rules like "Everyone has the absolute right to control his own property, provided that he does not use it to violate the corresponding rights of others" do not serve as a good intellectual basis for a "libertarian" society. because those simple rules are not helpful in settling disputes like the laser and the lamp example.
Student: ^ i agree. i was just stressing the point that David Friedman made in the chapter mentioned in the OP. specifically, that simple rules like "Everyone has the absolute right to control his own property, provided that he does not use it to violate the corresponding rights of others" do not serve as a good intellectual basis for a "libertarian" society. because those simple rules are not helpful in settling disputes like the laser and the lamp example.
You sort of contradict yourself. These "simple rules" (or principles to be more accurate) are what define private property and self ownership and they are at the basis of any contractual society. At no point do the rules created by contractual agreements violate the main principle. Or to put it in other words, a contractual society that violates property rights is a contradictory of terms. For example, if you and I contractually agree to enslave John, then we longer have a contractual society, for our relationship to John is now hegemonic, and not contractual.
I agree there is some confusion over this. Rothbard may be partly responsible for this, but on the other hand, Rothbard also heavily relies on explanations based on precisely such contractual agreements to explain how the free society would provide all conceivable services currently preserves to the State.
All these kind of questions might be a problem by a Rothbardian view, but really, think about an an-cap society. Property owners won't read For a new Liberty when these problems arise, they will call to their lawyers. And problems will be solved on private courts. I really don't see any point with these kind of moral questions.
simple rules like "Everyone has the absolute right to control his own property, provided that he does not use it to violate the corresponding rights of others" do not serve as a good intellectual basis for a "libertarian" society. because those simple rules are not helpful in settling disputes like the laser and the lamp example.
I am surprised that we agree on this point. However, Friedman makes the point from a different approach than I would make it. It's not just that we can think of examples where simple property rules break down but that law is not about making rules in the first place. Furthermore, it is a foreseeable consequence of the fact of uncertainty that we could never design a rule-set which is so complete as to be applicable and satsifactory for all future conflicts that will ever happen between now and whenever humans go extinct. So, it's not just that our rule-set isn't complete enough, it's that it could not conceivably ever be complete. This is a much stronger statement than just that "we can think of situations where libertarian rules break down."
Clayton -
What? There were a few holes you could've poked in what I said, but I haven't changed anything. I am saying that popular opinion decides what it means to "disrupt someone else's private property." What constitutes a disruption is not clear, differs between cultures and changes over time. My point, which I didn't really bother stating, is that there is no contradiction here. No reconciling is necessary. He can still use this as a "guiding principle," once he properly understands what the principle says. This is true whether you believe a disruption could be deduced from some axiom, or you appeal to adjudicators/popular opinion as I have, or something else.
It is the same case with your, "Everyone has the absolute right to control his own property, provided that he does not use it to violate the corresponding rights of others." What constitutes people's rights - and therefore what actions constitute a violation of another's rights - is obviously not clarified within the sentence and is still up for discussion. What is at issue is not the pithy summarization, but the chain of arguments being summarized. Such as: what counts as disruption? What rights do people have? What is property, and what does it mean for your property to be secure? A non-utilitarian solution to these questions may not be persuasive, but it would be circular to say they are answered (or 'deduced') by the above statement. Friedman is right and has many good examples of situations in which a strict property-rights approach causes problems, but this laser/lamp one is easily dismissed. It does not require mental gymnastics to offer a satisfactory answer, unlike, say, Friedman's rifle problem.