Political Theory

Re: Porno on the house wall?

Danno — Sun, 31 May 2009 19:15:25 GMT

liberty student:

scineram:

Pavel:

Loud property?

This is right. If sounds can be nuisance, why not sights?

Sound moves air.

Objects reflect light waves/particles in the direction of your property, just as sounds move air across your property.

I'm not saying that I disagree, mind you - but that I dispute the validity of this point of your argument here.

Danno, wishin' his neighbors would decorate their houses in a manner he found appealing.

Re: Porno on the house wall?

Juan — Sat, 30 May 2009 20:58:49 GMT

And sound is hard to stop from entering your plot of land. Stopping light is way easier.

Re: Porno on the house wall?

Pavel — Sat, 30 May 2009 20:55:46 GMT

Sound moves air. -

- Bravo!

Re: Porno on the house wall?

liberty student — Sat, 30 May 2009 20:47:06 GMT

scineram:

Pavel:

Loud property?

This is right. If sounds can be nuisance, why not sights?

Sound moves air.

Re: Porno on the house wall?

scineram — Sat, 30 May 2009 20:42:25 GMT

Pavel:

Loud property?

This is right. If sounds can be nuisance, why not sights?

Re: Porno on the house wall?

Zavoi — Sat, 30 May 2009 20:33:20 GMT

Pavel:
OK, can we apply this quote from Hoppe:... as there is no big difference between noise and sight?

If B had the porn painting first, and then A moved in next to B, then A has no right to complain because he acquired from the beginning a plot of land with a porn painting next to it. That much, at least, I think is uncontroversial. The question is: what if A was already there when B put up the painting?

If, as Paul said, B agreed to certain terms when he bought the house that stipulated that he would not put up a porn painting, then clearly we side with A, because B never acquired the right to put up a porn painting in the first place. On the other hand, if it was made clear to A when A bought his house than the B would be allowed to put up a porn painting if he wanted, then we side with B, because A never acquired the right to a porn-free view.

If there was no explicit mention of this issue in the homeowners' agreements, then we are left having to figure out whether there was any kind of implicit agreement. For example, if you buy a house with a lawn, then it is understood that you are allowed to mow the lawn (thus making noise that the neighbors will hear), but it is also understood that you're not allowed to mow the lawn in the middle of the night (waking everybody up). Nobody actually wrote this down on a paper contract, but it's something that most people would figure out anyway. In the case of house paintings, I think the most reasonable assumption to make is that there are no restrictions on painting your house unless they are explicitly stated, although this convention may differ from neighborhood to neighborhood.

If someone really cared, they would probably make sure to get explicit agreements from the neighbors to clear up any confusion.

Re: Porno on the house wall?

Pavel — Sat, 30 May 2009 20:14:24 GMT

Loud property?

Re: Porno on the house wall?

liberty student — Sat, 30 May 2009 20:02:23 GMT

Pavel:
as there is no big difference between noise and sight?

Pavel:

OK, can we apply this quote from Hoppe:

"If A currently physically damages the property of B

Re: Porno on the house wall?

Pavel — Sat, 30 May 2009 19:56:20 GMT

OK, can we apply this quote from Hoppe:

"If A currently physically damages the property of B (for example by air pollution or noise), the situation must be judged differently depending on whose property right was established earlier. If A’s property was founded first, and if he had performed the questionable activities before the neighboring property of B was founded, then A may continue with his activities. A has established an easement. From the outset, B had acquired dirty or loud property, and if B wants to have his property clean and quiet he must pay A for this advantage. Conversely, if B’s property was founded first, then A must stop his activities; and if he does not want to do this, he must pay B for this advantage."

as there is no big difference between noise and sight?

Re: Porno on the house wall?

Juan — Sat, 30 May 2009 19:19:46 GMT

There'd no doubt be explicit rules about things like that (what sorts of external modifications you can make to your house, keeping your lawn cut, etc.) which he agreed to when he bought the house.

In an anarcho-totalitarian community, yes, there might be that kind of 'rule'.

Re: Porno on the house wall?

Harry Felker — Sat, 30 May 2009 19:11:30 GMT

liberty student:
Plus, the example is extreme. I mean, why would you paint porno on the outside of your house, when you can't see it in the dark?

This is why I opened a glow in the dark house paint store....

Re: Porno on the house wall?

Paul — Sat, 30 May 2009 12:36:39 GMT

Well, it depends. There'd no doubt be explicit rules about things like that (what sorts of external modifications you can make to your house, keeping your lawn cut, etc.) which he agreed to when he bought the house. But if not, the neighbour has the right to keep his curtains closed :)

Re: Porno on the house wall?

liberty student — Sat, 30 May 2009 09:40:02 GMT

No right to force him to change it. He can complain until he is blue in the face.

These situations are rare, because neighbors have an incentive to get along.

Plus, the example is extreme. I mean, why would you paint porno on the outside of your house, when you can't see it in the dark?

Re: Porno on the house wall?

Conza88 — Sat, 30 May 2009 09:37:17 GMT

Pay him to change it and make a contract for him to keep it.

Put up a sheet blocking it, on your property.

Boycott him, the shame game. Local businesses refuse to sell him anything until it's taken down.

...

Porno on the house wall?

Pavel — Sat, 30 May 2009 09:24:56 GMT

Another question form a scholar from Saint-Petersburg, Russia. Let me apologize for my broken English in advance.
Anyway I’m interested in the idea of “human rights as property rights”, especially information rights and the freedom of speech. So, there’s a situation I’d like to offer for consideration:

Suppose A has a new neighbour, B.
B moves in and decides to repaint his house (which is his private property). To reflect his outstanding personality, B paints huge pornographic scenes with private parts showing on his façade. These scenes are clearly observed from A’s windows. A may have kids, or he may not, but the question is pretty much the same: does he have a right to complain?

On the one hand, A does have a right not to receive any information he does not want (see the right of another person not to be buttonholed if he doesn't want to, i.e., his right not to listen – Rothbard, The Ethics of liberty, p. 117).
On the other hand, B has a full right do anything he wants to with his property.

Every idea will be very much appreciated.