IRC log started Fri Apr 18 22:02 Welcome to #GeekSpeak. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that all channel logs are the copyright of the channel owners: Pankaj Saxena and Tom Wright. Logs may not be redistributed in any form without the prior consent of the channel owners. Tonight's discussion is on "Chewing Property Rights", and will be moderated by Tym Parsons. As usual, the discussion will be conducted in keyword-protected mode. If you see someone off-channel whom you think would like to join the discussion and would not be disruptive, please message me or Wright. Go ahead, Tym Hokay.. Some of you have noticed the "decency" threads on hpo And what we're hoping to do tonight is chew the notion of property rights with regard to nuisances (the legal term) Especially those nuisances deemed "offensive" First of all, how do we validate property rights? speak! Man's nature as a rational animal requires that he be free to act for his survival. Rights are simply the validation of that freedom to act for his life in a social context. why do you say "validate" instead of "prove"? Is it because prooperty rights are axiomatic? I'd say that something is considered property if it has been somehow "improved". Individuals create the physical values their survival requires, so they obtain a right to those values when they create them. joe: validate is just a more generic term that subsumes proof. No biggie How does one get property? Property rights are a recognistion that the creator of a value is the creator of a value. By producing it or exchanging it. You either get property by creating it or by trading a value with the person who owns it. Betsy: right. Man, by his nature, requires physical objects to surive, and must produce or trade to get them. Whatever you acquire legitimately is yours absolutely. How does one claim title to something. Can you claim the "dark side of the moon"? ;) that is, to survive *and* prosper. One can claim title to that which he will use in the preservation of his life, provided one has earned it as described above. No. To claim something as yours, you need to use it to further your own life. If nobody owns something, you get a right to it by being the first person to _use_ it. betsy: I think Rand wrote an article about that principle being the idea behind the homesteading act. Segelbe: That's right. Betsy: right Can one claim use of property without specifiying what that use is *for*? I'm kind of curious: the native American tribes who were on the land before: did they have a legitimate right to that land? Was it really taken away? I'm not implying anything, just asking. :) segelbe: that's an interesting side topic. Maybe we can get into it a little later ok. Tym: There must be objective evidence that he is using it *for something*. Segelbe: They had the right to pass over it or hunt on it if they did that previously. segelbe: occaisonally wandering over a peice of land does not constiture ownership. TomM: why? Tym: Use needs to be demonstrated - the property is yours *after* the fact. So no, you not only have to specify, you also have to do it. Tym: otherwise, i could claim the dark side of the moon ;) segelbe: Short reply: the Indians, by their own admission, refused to own land on religious grounds. No, I want the whole hemisphere ;) Can I claim everything under my plot of land to the center of the earth, and outward to infinity? not unless you improve it. Tym: Like everything else, property rights have limits; in this case, limits of usage. Tym: How are you _using_ it? Is anyone else using it? Tom: howso? Tym: that's an interesting question for sideways oil drilling. Tym: If you nevr drill on your property, how can you calim to own what's under your feet? Here's a more reasonable problem: wells are often sunk to get water. Now, what does the farmer own wrt the water if the water body tapped into extends further than his own property? Legendre: He owns the part that he can access from his own property. Legendre: I think that falls under claiming unused land. Betsy: so is determination of use bound up with *how* something is being used? Is specifying how important with regrad to proerty claims? Legendre: thats the same as bordering on a surface lake. Tym: i'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm pretty sure if your neighbor is pumping oil and a part of the pool is under your land that you get paid royalties. Tym: could you rephrase? how does the method of use determine the claim? Yeah. You can't spray a few thousand square miles of ocean with dust from an airplane and claim it's yours because you "used" it. Glenn: I think that's optional. for example, in mineral wealthy lands, when you buy property, you have to pay extra to include the possible mineral/oil under your land. Tom: for example, can you claim ownership of something for any and all conceivable uses, whether you've discovered them or not? Wouldn't the person own the right to the potential use of the ground under their property, though...? it sounds as though "use" needs to be defined in a sense distinct from mere "touch". Sube: why not? Tym: it it is legitimately on your property, you are the only one who has usage rights. Tym: Property rights are the right to use and dispose of particular physical things. Different people can validly claim the right to different uses of the same physical thing-- fishing, or swimming, or boating in the same river, for example. Tom: what is the "it" tho? Tym: Because "use" has the context "use for man's survival". Betsy: right Tym: I would think yes. If you gainrd ownership of land by gold mining it, you would then be able to use it for putting up a shopping mall when the gold ran out. Sube: why would someone do as you just suggested without reason? The "it" means what he is using. He may have a gold mine on his property without knowing it, but so long as he owns the land, he owns the minerals too. Tym: I can imagine several environmental groups pulling somethinglike that to prevent fishing or oil drilling. Tym: For the purpose of satisfying the letter of the law as regards ownership, if the law were such. joe: suppose someone else put up the mall before you, while not interfering with yr gold operation? Tym: if someone puts up a mall on a piece of property, then that becomes *their* property and you ahve to get permission to dig for gold. (I'm not sure how you can use the same property for those two purposes,though) Tym: once you assume full title (by productively using the land) then you gain full control of it as property. Sube: but doesn't yr example qualify as "improving" on nature? I think most real estate contracts contain the phrase "the buyer has the right to all minerial and oil deposits" or something similar. Tym: Generally, when you own land, you own it for the use you make of it and all other uses which your current use requires or might interfere with. Tym: To "improve" should have the context "improve its usefulness for the purpose of sustaining man's life". Glenn: Unless they don't. I don't have the mineral rights to the land my house is on. Glenn: That depends on the known mineral deposits. some states, like Colorado, have very delimited land usage laws. Betsy: so it's crucial at the outset that you specify what that use is? Sure: it would depend on the contract. brb The context is this: man needs property rights because property is the physical form in which he re-arranges or modifies reality to suit his own survival. Therefore, property rights need to be established in reference to aiding man's survival. Generally speaking, I think it is understood you own the surface land down to a certain depth. this permits deep mining by others that wouldn't interfer with your surface you live on. Tym: That's true. A right is a right TO DO something with the property. Discerned, perhaps, not "established." Sube: if someone's willing to claim title to their spraying dust, that must mean it's a value to them. I'd say that right now, since we haven't any way to access land except from the top down, that whoever owns the "top" automatically gets first crack. Tym: You can't claim to own land merely by spraying dust over it. Tym: what we are talking about so far is acquiring previously unowned land. Once it has become your property, you are free to do with it what you want (within certain limits. segelbe: burrow in from the side Tym: I think that touches on the difference between "touch" and "improve". That doesn't matter. If I decided to dig a cellar in my backyard, and found that my neighbors had a cellar extending into my property already "because I wasn't using it"... It's still my property. Segelbe: Anyone who wants to drill for oil in your backyard would probably be interfering with your normal use of it. TomM: Northwestern University "sprayed" several million tons of sand over Lake Michigan and claimed ownership of the landfill. Amy: Depths down to cellar levels I think are automatically covered on your land deed. joe: right. But delimiting and demarcating WHAT it is you own has to make reference to HOW you intend to use it We're only talking of unclaimed land. If something already belongs to someone, whoever owns it has rights to it and decides how to use it. Tym: but that would limit you to using it as you planned. what if decide to use it differently? The procedures for establishing title to unowned property are man-made. It is a matter of man-made law and there can be many different valid options as to how it is done. Tym: I'm not sure about the phrasing. If I legally obtain land for the purpose of living on it, then I dig a hole and find gold, do I not own the gold as well? Subetai: so if I homestead a methamphetamine factory, it's not mine because it's not an "objective value"? TomM: It depends on whether someone else already owns the mineral rights. TomM: I don't understand what you mean. whisper Amy So they are discussing how someone originally gets to own land? joe: yup Tom: sure. Tom: as long as it doesn't interfere with others Tym: No, it's yours. I guess "improve" should mean that you change it in some way to make it more useful to you. Sube: maybe some people find it "useful" to spray dust? Betsy: that's true. What I had in mind is that you homestead a new area where no one else lives. then, in your spare time you dig, and find gold. You work the gold dig into a mine which extends beyond your porperty line. Tym: are we talking about spraying dust over ocean or land? Tym: then I disagree with you. There has to be a procedure for ensuring that you follow through with plans for an unclaimed piece of land, but any limits should expire after you have met the time requirements. Tym: Well, they can have the perpetual right to spray dust on it forever. Others can fish in it, etc. You would still own the gold, since you put forth the effort to dig it up. you own the gold because you found it on either your own property or unclaimed property. That's it. TomM: Then you would want to file a mining claim on the adjacent property and work the mine enough to establish ownership. Subetai: isn't the REASON they sprayed the dust an essential consideration? Betsy: sure. Tym: The reason was so they could get to own the property, given the laws of the state. Why do we keep getting back to spraying dust? Is there a context here? Sube: sounds pretty artificial :) Sube: Sounds like the local laws could use a little improvement. just to clarify, we are talking about ordinary non-fertilizer or "useful" dust, right? Betsy: Sure. So how would you change them? How would you define "improvement" to keep out frivolous things? Sube: I think that's a borderline consideration. We need to move on. sure OK, assuming that everyone grasps the importance of specifying use of something in order to establish claim to something, we'll apply this to the "decency" issue. In a typical context, is it within yr property rights to copulate on yr front porch, in public view? Discuss. I think it depends on the nature of those property rights. Unless a stipulation was made when you bought the property that it was forbidden to do so, I think it should be legal. Tym: if that's what you really want to do, I'd say yes, taking into consideration what Sube said. Sube: The neighbors, especially those with young children, may never talk to you again. ;-) Yeah. I'll have to keep the consequences in mind. Sube, segelbe: so in no way can it be construed as a violation of the property rights of yr neighbors? And don't complain if they build high walls on every side of you And, if you rent, you may lose your lease, depending on the contract. Tym: A right to see what you want also implies the right not to see what you don't want to.If it is front of me and I have no choice in seeing it whenever I leave my house ...It is not a right Tym: How would it be? Jay: would it be a vilation if they blasted earsplitting music at 3:00 AM? violation Tym: it's in extremely bad taste, but other than that, no. Tym: Yes, because the sound waves come onto my property. Loud music, on the other hand, is very disruptive, and you can't just "look away" or build high walls. Jay: howz that any different from photons coming on to yr property? It also depends on where you bought the property -- In Puritannical Christian Valley or in Free Love Nudist Camp. Communities write things in their property deeds and have homeowners associations -- or ought to. Tym: light can be blocked with a fence. Sound is a little different. Tym: See what Sarah said. You can't ignore or avert your senses from the sound. Betsy: what if there are no pre-existing contracts? Tym: I believe Ear splitting music is a violition of my rights. BlueGreen: i disagree with that. what if you decide to paint your house in a way your neighbors won't like...do they have a right to stop you? Jay: sure you can. Put in earplugs :) Tym: That only works to a certain decibel level. :) BlueGreen: why? Tym: but even with ear plugs, you have to keep them in all the time, which interferes with your own life. If there is no pre-existing contract, then you need some kind of "reasonable man" test. A weirdly colored house may be unpleasant, but it is not infringing on you in the way that loud music does. The law recognizes "noise pollution" as a violation of property rights. segelbe: wouldn't "averting my eyes" interfere with my life too? Playing loud music (or any other noise) is a violation of my right to listen to what I want on my property. Andrew: ok, why? I agree wholeheartedly with Betsy's point. People should form communities where certain principles of conduct are spelled out by contract. If you violate the contract, you can be kicked out. Tym: Things get sticky and that's why I am for CC&R's in deeds. You have to fall back on customary usage or local tribunals when things can't be settled by persuasion. There are a lot of "weirdly colored houses" in my neighborhood. But I can't see how they're exactly offensive. Andrew: what if the weird painted house does affect you. It may affect the value of your property and in effect cause you to lose money. In the case of lude behavior, I don't see how it violates rights, though i might be wary of those neighbors -- who know what else they might decide to do? I think it may be necessary to explain how weird a house would have to be to constitute an offensive sight. Tom: They're probably libertarians - in which case the neighborhood's going to hell. Segelbe: In many neighborhoods there are deed restrictions on the colors you may paint your house or procedures for an "architectural committee" to rule on it. Betsy: what can and can't be construed as aproperty rights violation. Why? I got here late. What principles have already been established about property rights? Has the issue of being first in an area come up. For example, while an airport is loud, if they were in an area before a housing project was, they have a right to continue. However, if they move into an area near a quite... jay: right ;) From the point of view of property rights, you only have rights to your home and what you do on it. Continual loud noises can keep you from working in your own home. housing, then they wouldn't have the right to, without the owners consent. quite = quiet Betsy: there are restrictions in lots of neighborhoods. But if there *aren't* those restrictions in the area of the bizarre house, then what? Betsy: i disagree with that. unless there is one previous owner of the development, i don't see how "following" your neighbors is necessitated. Subetai: working at what? Can't "visual pollution" be a problem too? segelbe: Then that should be a factor in your purchasing decision. If something's in the contract you agree to, you follow the contract. Tym: Generally, no. Kane: you are getting through. Would extremely loud noise be any different from sending noxious smoke or gases onto your neighbors property? Subetai: wouldn't a contract have to spell out in exhaustive list of concretes? Tym: It should cover all the bases you want to cover, yes. Gabriel: what about "visual pollution". Is there such as thing? Gabriel: I'd say that those would be in the same category. Even to the extent that you can plug your ears, you can't stop your nose. What about barry manilow played at soft levels? "Decency laws" sounds like conservatives trying to run your moral life. Tym: Property rights are the right to use and dispose of certain things in _some_ ways -- but not all. You may not be purchasing the right to erect a radio tower or raise pigs on your property -- just the right to use it as dwelling place. joe :) :) Tym: The list isn't that bad. All leases already cover noise, pets, proper behavior, etc. Joe: :) Loud noise or smoke is something which you are sending onto the property or person of another, while a visual monstrousity is not physically invading and damaging another person 's property. Betsy: does that have to spelled out in contract? Gabriel: what if the monstrosity will greatly effect your property value when you try to sell it? An oddly coloured house is not like loud music - it's more like music you don't like. To have light as something like loud music, what is required for that is say very bright lights shining all the time, especially in through your windows etc. Tym: It usually is. tomm: That' Jay: so if there's something that interferes in the use of yr property that's not on the list, too bad? Tom: That's in other's minds. Tym: It doesn't have to be, but it is better if it is. People have learned it the hard way. That's why major new housing developments have twenty pages of CC&R's. Betsy: a radio tower or pig farm clearly affects the neighbors. but not an architectural style or reasonably sized satellite dish. Laws controlling the latter are completely unjustified. Tom: Unless it was in the contract, there's nothing you can do. You have no right to have a high home value based on someone else's property outside. The noise or smoke is actually physically invading your person and/or property. Tym: No. We're discussing "quality of neighborhood" conditions which do not violate property rights unless there's an existing contractual obligation - two differetn contexts. Joe: when my parents built their house, they had to get permission from the lakeowners' association for the plan and style. Betsy: what if there's no CC&R? That's the issue here Betsy: sure, but in those kinds of cases, the development was developed by one company, and they have the right to stipulate terms for purchasing and using the land they previously owned. One way to think about it is the following. There is some kind of default standard that exists in the law implicitly. This will be used to determine what constitutes a nuisance. If you want something different, then put it in the contract. Joe: Maybe laws are unjustified, but deed restrictions you voluntarily agree to abide by when you purchase the property are often to the buyer's advantage. tomm: What if *foreign* (OH MY!) neighbors move in and destroy my property value. After all, who would want to buy my land now with those people around?! Andrew: elaborate? gabriel: what are they doing, specifically? segelbe: unfortunately those controls are reponsible for a lot of bad house design Gabriel: I didn't say i agreed with it, I was bringing it up as a consideration. Joe: yeah, I know. Tom: Versus: Someone moves in and promptly dumps a ton of toxic waste on my front lawn. Big differnce. Gabe: Sure. Tym: When there are no CC&R's you have to depend on persuasion for the little things and lawsuits for the big issues. Betsy: contractual restrictions are fine, but govt. controls are not. Gabe: what if I move someplace for the scenery and it conflicts with no one else's use of their property? If some one builds something that then destroyes the view from my bay window, is that a violation? tomm: Oh, I didn't think you necessarily did agree with it (I assumed you were probably playing the Devil's advocate.) does anyone remember what happened when Madonna painted her house in yellow and red stripes and let the lawn go to seed? Tym: i would say no, you don't own something merely because you can see it. Only if you owned the property that was built on.. In general the principle is that someone may not physically interfere with someone else's normal use of his own property. Betsy: But you get what you ask for in such situations. Before you sign the dotted line, you better have read the lease, or purchase agreement, and determined that everything is to your satisfaction. Tym: No, unless you purchased the right to the view from window from someone who owned the land in between that made it possible. tym: Does someone have a right to a view? That's an interesting question. Betsy: ok, that's what I'm getting at. On what BASIS can you bring a lawsuit. Say in this "copulation" case tym: That sounds like that means that someone has the right to look at someone elses property. segelbe: They neighbors would be able to get here to mow her lawn out of concerns of pests (animals) moving it. Tym: If you didn't get protection for your view written into the deeds of people who could do it, you have no case. Caveat emptor. Gabe: not necessarily. Say they were the first ones there. Moved there for the view. tym: So? Tym: if they're doing it on their own front porch, you could, if they have any modesty, make the case loud and public, but, aside from that, I don't think so. If you wanted to keep that view, you should have bought the property surrounding it to prevent it being used. Why would someone have that right? Tym: And if the view is not their property? What claims do they have? What rights? What is the view of? Where does the "view" exist? How is the right to an unimpeded view the same as the right not to have toxic waste dumped on one's front lawn? Jay, Gabe: that's what I'm asking. Is there any sort of tenable way of "claiming a view"? Tym: If the passionate couple were causing a traffic jam and you couldn't get to work, you would have a case. Also if they were subjecting your children to things you do not approve of, you might also have a case. tym: I don't see how. You can buy property with a guaranteed view - like property near a beach where the owner of the beach contracts not to build anything there that'll prevent you from seeing the ocean. Tym: Not unless one man lives for the sake of another. tym: Because it seems that that requires that one have a right to anothers property. One cannot have a "right" to view someone else's property subetai: Yes, something like that might make sense. It's simple: You can't make a claim to someone else's property - any aspect of it. Betsy: so if yr children saw it, it could be construed as a rights violation? How? blue: Yes, my point. Sube: Yes. Tym: If they wanted to preserve the view, they should have bought ALL the property between their land and what they wanted to look at. Tym: that would be an awfully hard to prosecute, I think. Yes, what's that about the children seeing it, Betsy? Betsy: let's say your neighbors are Religious Fundamentalists, and they chose to live in poverty. then you move in with a Lexus and they claim you are subjecting their children to something they don't want? Subetai: right they haven't got a case unless they can prove that a Lexus is reasonably offensive. Tym - tell them to build a wall Tym: Other people may not subject your children to things you have forbidden them to. Betsy; i think you need to explain that. Betsy: deliberately, or inadvertently in the process of making use of their own property? Betsy: outside yr property? Inside? Does it make a difference? By copulating on the front porch, they are implicitly copulating for public display Consider: does an atheist have the right to walk up to a religious child and lecture him on why atheism is rational and religion is wrong? No. I don't think so either. TomM: A lot of this, absent CC&R's, is a matter of common courtesy. Every naighborhood has its obnoxious neighbors, but they usually only go so far before they end up in court. not on the religious child's parent's property. Or let's say you are an Objectivist, and your neighbors belong to an east Indian cult and wears those gowns they like to wear. do you have a right to prevent them from being clothed the way they want to dress? I think that's Betsy's point. Nor to a religious adult, if the adult tells him to get lost. What if the child was walking down the street (a public street let's say to make it contemporary)? Gabe, Jay: suppose you got away from "Babylon" with the avowed purpose of residing where you didn't have to see public amorous acts. Can you use property rights to do that? Gabe: If I were the child's parent, I would ask the person to cease and desist. If he didn't -- no more Mrs. Nice Gal. :) :) Tym: Only if you bought the whole neighborhood and "farmed" it out with that stipulated in the contract. tym: I'm not sure I follow that one. Tom: Right. If it were a development community, or a wholly-owned city block, then sure. Since humans can reasonably survive in life without copulating in public, there can be no objectively valid "right" to do so betsy: The question is, is whether a person has a right in the first place to preach to a child against that child's religion. Gabe: i.e. the purpose for which yr using the property is to be free of such sights. I think the question is over interfering with one's rights to raise their own children as they see fit. Gabriel: I think that's a separate issue. I got lost in the discussion. What was it about the child again? Ousey: so you think it should be banned? You just don't see the need for it? There are about three issues being discussed here. I think we need to focus on one at a time. Gabe: He has the right, absent agreements to the contrary, but without the parents consent and beyond a certain point it becomes harassment. Subetai: Betsy made the claim that one could prevent one's neighbors from doing things one didn't want one's child to know about. As Dr. Peikoff is noting in his OTI course, you have to start somewhere when making generalizations -- and common sense says there's a difference between observing a car or a piece of clothing and publicly showing off sex. It's a matter of preserving a civilized living environment. On their own property? Things that would normally be okay if their neighbors didn't have kids? tym : What is the connection between being "free from certain repugnant sights" and property rights? Phil: The common sense seems logical. But what specifically differentiates them? even then, I have a hard time with actually legally forbidding something like that. They are on their own property, after all. midas: The fact of the privacy and importance of sex ToomM: Actually, I said parents could prevent people from doing something in view of the child (from a public place or his own property) that his parents don't want him exposed to. Phil: elaborate? Betsy; i see no difference. I think you need to validate that claim a bit more. Tym: In the absence of a pre-existing legal claim to copulate in public, it is at the discretion of the public to determine what is an acceptable public view You also have to ask: Whose _rights_ are being violated by requiring sex to be done not-in-public-view? Ousey: Is it? that's very dangerous reasoning. PhilO1: There's a difference, certainly. But is one less "civilized"? Another thing to ask is: how does a ban on outdoor sex (in public view) in your neighborhood violate the rights of people who want to have outdoor sex? TomM: Its a judgement call and very difficult to define or enforce without written agreements. Betsy: parents have a right to seek to raise their chidren as they see fit, as fully as possible without interfering with the private habits of others? phil: ok oops, that wasn't very clear. Segelbe: PRIVATE habits. Gabriel: suppose everyone in the neighborhood deemed it as part of the use of their residences to be free of the sight of "indecency". Would such then be a violation of their property? I assume rights to mean "the sanction to do as you please so long as you don't use or threaten to use force against another". Meaning, that you do not specifically need a "right" to do something. Rights are a negative obligation against others to prevent them from interfering with your freedom to act, so long as you give them the same freedom. Tym: That argument has been used to keep prono clubs or dance halls out of neighborhods. by what right? tym: Was the expressly established in some sort of contractual agreement? CLubs and dance halls are not exposed to public view. YOu need to enter the owner's property physically to see them Some kinds of activities tend to interfere with the normal use of the people who used the property first. Phil: that's generally true, but the argument is used around here a lot to prevent further building of such palces...that they engage in lewd behavior. Betsy: You mean like sitting on your front porch? rere TomM: I don't claim that the public can control private actions, or that it should exercise much control of public actions, but when one can make a reasonable claim that they cannot do something in public because of what someone else is doing, then we have to see who has the greatest inconvenience in terms of normal use I think this is akin to blaring loud music on your property. YOu can't turn off your ears and you can't shut your eyes while walking down the sidewalk or driving a car If you insisted on staying fully clothed in a nudist camp, you would probaby interfere with the locals' enjoyment of the place. hello all Gabe: no. Or what about a society that considers women with uncovered arms and head to be vulgar and offensive. can they legitimately legislate headdresses for women? What about "gross indecency" on private property in public view. Does that violate your rights as a neighbor? joe: Is Islamic countries, they do. Don't live there :) TomM: Certain activities also interfere with raising children in a "family neighborhood." Joe: I'm seeing a slippery slope here somewhere. :) joe-: Probably only if women weren't allowed to vote, in which case they cannot do anything like that legitamately phil: I will agree to the extent that public lewdity may create unsafe driving conditions down that street -- whcih they would have a right to do. tym: So it would seem to be a subjective consideration in that case. Betsy: so "family neighborhoods" could be the basis of a lawsuit? Joe: If that is what the property deed in "Ayatollah Acres" says, that's what it is. segelbe: right Betsy: Should such "family neighborhoods" be designated as such in advance and contractually enforced, or can you turn a previous "general neighborhood" into a "family neighborhood" by the fact of a family moving in there? betsy: sure. Tym: They can take their activities inside, whereas I cannot necessarily keep my children inside when they start their activities Betsy: i'm not saying I would want it to be happening across my street if I had kids, but I don't see where I'd have the right to prevent them from doing it. Sube: ideally, someone buys up a large tract ofland, draws up an appropriate contract and agrees to sell parcels only on condition of signing the contract. Segelbe: I have no problems with that. It's the other I'm wondering about. ah, ok. Tym: Without CC&R's it is very hard to define and enforce the will of the property owners, but you do the best you can. segelbe: I think that is the only solution, as has been mentioned before. I would say you have to accept the conditions as they are when you take the property. Use common sense and reason in choosing where you want your family to live. Amy: the context is what happens if new neighbors move in that tend to change the "aura" of the neighborhood? Segelbe: That's what CC&R's are -- and most of them are a lot tougher than local zoning, ordinances, or anything else govt does. But let's not be rationalistic. Which existing neighborhoods on Planet Earth have people openly having sex on their porches in broad daylight? Betsy: Well, they exist, but does the government have the right to tell you what you can or can not do on your property? Phil: Haigt Ashbury? Some of this is what was once called "the proper assumption of risk," a notion abandoned in our age of the Safety Nazis, to borrow from P.J. O'Roarke. phil: that's a very good point ;) I'd say very few. In most places, that'll give you a jail term. Betsy: Um ... ok :) I'll take your word for it Phil: You mean outside of Paris and Amsterdam? You want to have interaction, a housing market, and few restrictions on who moves in -- well, you pays your money and you takes your choice, including the attendant risk of some bad-apple neighbors coming along. not to imply any stereotypes, but I'd imagine that this would be more likely in "poorer" neighborhoods. TomM: The issue isn't the govt telling you -- it's your NEIGHBORS. Such things fill up the civil (rather than the criminal) courts all the time. Betsy: We are trying to determine if such suits are viable. betsy: and the People's Court too. I still don't understand the point about children. Was the point made that activities on your own property that were legal otherwise become illegal if your neighbor has children? Aside from any contract signed? What AR says about this: Apart from criminal actions (such as rape), this aspect includes the need to protect people from being confronted with sights they regard as loathsome. (A corollary of the freedom to see and hear, is the freedom not to look or listen.) Legal restraints on certain types of public displays, such as posters or window displays, are proper - but this is an issue of procedure, of etiquette, not of morality. In Texas, anyone can sue anyone for anything. Like if I move into a neighborhood, and they don't like my white car, they can sue me....but that doesn't make it right for them to do so. Sube: In many places, there are laws on the books already making some activies illegal, they just don't get enforced unless someone complains Ayn Rand Letter, Vol III no. 2 Sube: When children are involved, you get into parental consent issues and there are a lot of things we normally consent to for oursel;ves that we would not consent to for our children. That's why "Adults Only" is posted outside some places. By an issue of "procedure" or "etiquette" does she mean contractual issues? I read that and wondered why Rand thought that such "etiquette" was the proper subject of legislation. No, I think she means everyday civilized common courtesy Phil: wasn't it in the context of property rights tho? By that criterion we'd have Congress mandating "decency" on the Net. Hey, wait a minute ... Betsy: I understand that you'd like to protect kids. Question is, how far can you use that to prevent people from doing what they will on their own property. hola, all phil: that's a very interesting quote, but i notice she didn't write about that anywhere else, unless i missed it. It's on the issue of censorship and thought control. Everyday civilized courtesy is fine too, but I understand the question is of legislation. Is that legislation enforcement of a contract or public decency laws? It could be either Maybe we should get off kids for a moment and instead deal with another common issue: the neighborhood hound that barks loudly and incessantly at everyone who walks by I might be missing something, but how is such prior restraint on the type of public displays different from censorship? I second Ousey. :) Sube: It depends on where you live and where you let your kids go. If someone did certain things in MY neighborhood, I would ask them to stop, tell them to stop, warn them to stop, or go to court, if necessary, to MAKE them stop. Betsy: If you went to court, what moral law would you be relying on? That's my question. Sorry if I wasn't clear before. Aren't children a borderline issue? It's telling that the common-law courts in England developed the law of nuisance over many centuries by adjusting local claims. The Royal courts did not. Shouldn't we first establish the center of the page cases before moving onto peripheral issues? Ousey: In the case of a dog barking, you have the right to enjoy your free time as you decide on your property, and if the neighbor's dog's bark is interupting Beetoven, you have the right to prevent it. Gabe: so how are "photons" subjectivist and noises aren't? Ousey: If the dog was posing a physical threat, there are grounds for having it restrained. If kids did not want to play on the sidewalk for fear of the dog, you could ask the owner to keep his pet away from them. Tym: Exactly tym: What?! tym: Where does that come from? TomM: or if the only way you can walk from the bus stop to your house is by walking by the dog's fence... Gabe: re: public amoury I must have missed something. Ousey: yes, a barking dog is threatening you, which it has no right to do. I mean you can generalize the principle to _any_ "public" sensory stimulus that can be imposed on people without their consent -- visual, auditory, smell too heh. "We ban the use of outdoor Barbeque cooking" Sube: The grounds I would claim in court would be that someone's actions were interfering with my established normal use of my proprty. Gabe: you were saying loud noises are right out but views weren't midas: How about an open cesspool? phil: That may be an avenue of resolving the issue as well. But I think it would have to be very clearly defined. I think that's the difference between light that enters your non-covered window and someone shining a huge searclight through. but the degree of consent for visual "stimulus" is much lower: look away, it's "gone". I.e., context. Phil: Barbeque cooking, and cespools. Isn't the noise an assualt on your eardrums and central nervous system (heart starts racing involuntarily as a result of the sudden start of barking) Sarah: Oh really? You mean the porch they're "doing they're thing on" at the end of the street as I'm driving I can look from? tym: How does looking at something constitute physical force? Betsy: They might say that your claims were interfering with their established normal use of their property. What decides the matter? Who established first? Whose claims are more normal? I think you can easily see that at a certain point noise is physical force. Ousey: I think my heart would start to race if the neighbors did it in public...especially if she was good looking ;) TomM: and if it could cause an accident on a busy street...? TomM dies of heart attack, are they liable? ;) Sube: First use is critical. "Normal" in terms of the "reasonable man test" also enters into it. Ousey: i've already said that if the action prevents people from driving down the street safely, by distracting the driver, one would have the right to prevent it. Ousey: whose fault is the accident? the reckless, horny driver, or the people having sex? midas :) midas: Somethings which are completely unexpected do tend to take people by surprise just long enough for disaster TomM: "As long as they don't do it in the street and scare the horses." phil: what a way to go...;) but serioulsy, I think one could objectively establish grounds for preventing certain actions, i'm just not sure what criteria should be used. "Normal' usage sounds too vague. Betsy: First use could kind of be included in the contractual agreement, though it probably won't always be. As for the other, I can see how your claim is stronger, but I don't see how it can dictate how someone else uses his property. Ousey: like accidents on the road. Betsy: in those days, that was a rational law, since horses tend to be skittish. There can be no "right" to violate the rights of others. One cannot have a right to subject another to indecency without their permission TomM: I think Normal is normal --ie., the norm or usual--as it applies specifically to the locality; not "normal" as in proper. sexually explicit posters may properly be forbidden in public places; warning signs, such as "For Adults Only," may properly be required of private places which are open to the public. This protects the unconsenting, and has nothing to do with censorship, i.e., with prohibiting thought or speech. Sube: That's why these things are usually spelled out in CC&R's, adjudicated by committees of the homeowners association and, lacking that, by local ordinances and courts. midas: I know that, but it's still vague. (Another quote) BlueGreen: Subjecting one to "indecency" is a violation of rights? but the only real way to define indecency is by people's various opinions. And that's rather sticky. Betsy: I think CCR's are a great way to go. Courts adjudicating them on some basis without CCR's is what I'm questioning. Trying to dicover what a valid basis could be. Hold off while phil loads in the other quote. Nope Two paragraphs is enough. They're the core ones PhilO1: You cited the scripture, but not the verse. (I'm sorry. I couldn't resist.) So go read the article 99.9 of human disputes are resolved by moral suasion and private action. The real hard cases end up in court -- then you need some principles (legal or commonsensical) to deal with it. phil: what about the quote? As of now, I think children shouldn't be a factor in this, unless homeowners contractually agree to make them an issue and go for stricter contracts. Children ARE a factor if an action takes place in a public place frequented by children. midas:forcing me to view pornography is a violition of my privacy rights. I think the principle is being subjected, involuntarily, to sights/sounds/smells that are considered, for good reasons, to be private actions Legal and commonsensical is okay, so long as I know what's the moral argument behind them and agree with it. Sube: I disagree, I think parental rights are much more crucial and broader than one's right to display something that can just as easily be done without public display The same applies to some guy urinating in his front yard in open view Ousey: I'm not talking about the "right to display" - there is none such. There are just property rights. Forcing me to view advertisements with BlueGreen backgrounds is a violation of my privacy rights. There are a lot of things you can do in an XXX-rated movie house that you had better not do in the elementary school yard. It's hard for a parent to consider these issues and _not_ take into consideration how it affects their children. I will say that I think it is subjectivistic and hippie-like to claim the "right to do anything" on one's property regardless of morals or norms. Sube: I have no problem with a couple copulating, but when their photons leave their property, it is public display midas: Sue me :) The concept "public" and the concept "private" have real world referents. They mean something, and for a reason Betsy; presumably, the school yard is private property, so it's not really the same context. I dislike green plants. I have no problem with the neighbors keeping plants as long as their photons don't leave their property --its public display. Ousey: Never said it wasn't public display. The question was of preventing such display, and under what laws. PhilO1: "Public" is usually given the referent of "all of us owning it," and that's a nonsensical one. It's also the root of some of the conceptual confusion on this issue. Midas: If you choose to move into a neighborhood of gardeners, you have no case to stop them. As Rand wrote, capitalism presumes that "all property is privately owned." I think she had a point with "all." Let's say someone claims the right to crap out on his front yard. Surely any civilized person would find this repugnant. Should he be permitted to do it? But what if I don't move into a neighborhood of gardeners and then all the sudden, somebody builds a carden? garden even. Sube: some public displays are assaulting, not to mine eyes, but to my ability to introduce the concept of sexuality to my children at a reasonable pace midas: You *might* have a case if you can prove the plants agravate your sinus problems. If you give equal weight to subjectivist whim and legitimate repugnance, such as gardens vs. public urination or sex, then there's no basis, true Ousey: And what gives you that right at the expense of dictating someone else's property rights is the question. I want to introduce the concept of gravity to my kids at a reasonable pace. No more apple trees. Mencken: "Public" property means property accessible to anybody. It still can be privately owned. My sidewalk belongs to me, but an easement in my deed makes it accesible to anyone who wants to walk over it. Sube: what gives them the right to project images into my yard? Betsy: In part, that's my point. Who owns that easement? Midas: Does it interfere with your established use of your property in a way a "reasonable man" would agree with. That's what you would have to prove. Ousey: Same right that gives them permission to project images of them walking in their yards fully clothed. They don't ask your permission for that, nor do they do it because you let them. Betsy: But what is reasonable man? I consider myself a reasonable man and find the act of public sex in no way repugnant or... bad. I'm not for or against such laws at this point. I'm trying to understand the basis behind them and judge it. Betsy: Now you are getting to a means of settling the issue. Is gross irrationality permissible if you can't avoid looking at the display? So, do we go with me as the standard as the reasonable man, or some prude? It's the same conundrum that Rand and others wrote about regarding discrimination laws. The govt can be held to them because any one of "us" might be excluded from what we've paid for. (Held morally.) I think the solution to this problem is a contractual one. One which, under unbridled mega-corporate capitalism, would typically be implemented via a contract between the developer of the city and the people who buy homes from him. Let's say someone wanted to hang a poster up in their front lawn that showed a young girl being cut open by a sadist. I'd say that would be beyond the permissible. Mencken: EVERYBODY owns the easement to my sidewalk. The phone company had a narrow easement near my lawn, and the electric company has a easement to enter the back of my lot to fix the power lines only. Sube: as long as man lives in communities, there are certain things involving public view that they must arrive at by agreement and convention But such laws are prima facie immoral, and clearly so against private owners. David: yes, that's the simplist solution. Betsy: "Everybody" ... who? That's not ownership. Ousey: Agreement is fine. Signed and witnessed, preferbly. Everything else that's imposed on people needs to be justified. Back to where we were. TomM: Not a real world example. In that kind of world we wouldn't even have capitalism. That's one solution but it leaves open the legit question of the many cases not covered by explicit convenants David: Hmmm...why not? Do you mean the city government? TomM: Because capitalism presupposes the widespread acceptance of reason. Phil: Where there are no written agreements, you have to go by common usage and common sense to establish what people do and do not consent to. Subetai: Imposing sensory stimulus on everyone else -- having a sight/sound/smell coming _out_ of your property, is an imposition itself David: our earlier example was a development run by one company and making certain actions not permissible via contract. Betsy: I think that's the crux of the issue here David: Ok, that's true...didn't know what you meant. As they did in Galt's Gulch. Makes you wonder about constitutionalism. TomM: That's what I was thinking. Sube: Since many nuisance laws are already on the books, (and one must implictly agree to abide by them when moving somewhere), the question must be under what conditions can a new law be written without the consent of all involved? David_B: It is a real world example and can happen...would it be beyond what you would consider permissable? Betsy: people eat fondue on a very uncommon basis indeed. Am I to think that Fondue should be thus eliminated as public-viewable food/ After all, privacy is physically instantiated by assuring a limited range of perception of a particular act Galt's Gulch had a "homeowners' association" Phil: You can't live without imposing the sight of yourself on people unless you live on a desert island. Your appearance, your smell, your voice, everything's an imposition. The question is, what can be justified on someone's own property. :) Galt's gulch was origianlly owned by Midas mulligan. BlueGreen: I don't know. (And I can see *one* person doing it but not the whole neighborhood.) Not from what Rand wrote. Mulligan *sold* land to the others. Missed that appendix with the Valley CC&Rs. Midas: Does my eating something interfere with your established use of your property? How? Ousey: No, that's not the question for me. I'm not starting with what is in existence now. A lot of that's irrational. I'm starting with what should be. Betsy: perhaps i find liquid cheese revolting. How does public sex interfere? Subetai: That's true ... I didn't mean that all such impressions were negative impositions ... just that once it leaves your property and public view, you are imposing that on others without their consent. They may care, or not Menken: he sold it to them under the contractual agreement they would follow the rules he set up...including not telling anyone else about the property. Mencken: They had rules and they ENFORCED them in Galt's Gulch. Judge Narragansett was the final authority. Yes, showing that is a really a moral issue that goes deeper than just politics I don't think we objectively resolved the dilemma, but if my neighborhood was going to hell, I'd get out. I'd like to have seen what they signed agreeing to this. It seemed informal, indeed. "We're not a society or government of any kind." Midas: Most people don't. Why don't you tell your neighbor how you feel and ask him not to eat that in front of you? Phil: Well, we're discussing a borderline case. I can think of many more where someone with kids would want to keep them safe from being exposed to certain things. I'm trying to figure out what a rational standard should be. Betsy: what if he asserts his supposed right to eat what he wants on his own property? menken: I think you are dropping context of the establishment of Galt's Gulch. IRC log ended Fri Apr 18 23:44