Political Theory

Re: Destroying the view

ToxicAssets — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:49:16 GMT

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.

Re: Destroying the view

DanielMuff — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 18:06:57 GMT

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

Re: Destroying the view

z1235 — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:32:47 GMT

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".

Re: Destroying the view

Eugene — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 20:58:46 GMT

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.

Re: Destroying the view

z1235 — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 20:12:37 GMT

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.

Re: Destroying the view

Eugene — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 20:07:28 GMT

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.

Re: Destroying the view

Wheylous — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 20:00:13 GMT

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.

Re: Destroying the view

Eugene — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 19:55:30 GMT

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.

Re: Destroying the view

gotlucky — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 20:31:45 GMT

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

Re: Destroying the view

z1235 — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 19:25:33 GMT

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?

Re: Destroying the view

Malachi — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 18:40:51 GMT

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.

Re: Destroying the view

fountainhead — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 18:15:34 GMT

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.

Re: Destroying the view

myhumangetsme — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 18:07:15 GMT

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?

Re: Destroying the view

SkepticalMetal — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 16:54:46 GMT

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.

Re: Destroying the view

Vitor — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 15:51:41 GMT

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.