5 ms·

If I bought the property next to yours, and built large walls to block light from entering your windows, you'd rather the law had no power to stop me?

gravypod 10y ago
Not a problem by my standards. I don't care what you do next to my property. It is your property. But also, that is not what happened. He did what amounted to putting a box on a hill.
- cylinder 10y ago
  I'll put a parabolic reflector on my property to focus sunlight into a single point on your house, setting it on fire. It's my property so I do what I want. Libertarian nonsense falls apart so quickly.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    No, because that would cause damage to others' property, which isn't allowed in propertarianist theories.
    - cylinder 10y ago
      Denial of sunshine isn't damage?
      - gravypod 10y ago
        Fire can directly kill someone. A shadow cannot directly kill someone. Can you please shed some light on how you think these two things are remotely the same? (Had to sneak in the pun)
        im4w1l 10y ago
        What about my super expensive potted plants that shrivel and die from the lack of sunshine?
        gravypod 10y ago
        You have multiple paths for recourse. Your plants don't need to be inside, you can install a sun roof, you can get lights, or finally you can talk to your neighbor.
  - gravypod 10y ago
    > I'll put a parabolic reflector on my property to focus sunlight into a single point on your house, setting it on fire The difference is that Robert Rhinehart isn't setting fire to people or directly harming them. The difference is that you are trying to directly cause serious bodily harm. This is the worst analogy possible. The right analogy would be do I have the right to say "he has a parabolic reflector on his property that could start a fire. He needs to remove it." To me, that is unreasonable. > Libertarian nonsense falls apart so quickly Only under the scrutiny of logic with more holes then Swiss cheese. If you'd like to debate libertarian policies then I'm all ears. My email is in my profile.
  - dmix 10y ago
    Wonderful example of a strawman attack if I've ever seen one. Ignoring the obvious property rights issues and the fact that the majority of libertarians still support the existence of limited government interference, even the most hardcore anarcho-capitalists who aren't covered by the above still believe in a non-aggression principle which would clearly be violated. But that is small percentage of an already small group.
    - dwaltrip 10y ago
      There is no aggression involved in blocking all sunlight from someone's windows? I would beg to differ. Aggression is not a trivial concept to define.
      - dmix 10y ago
        It's "non aggression" principal not "no aggression"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle?wprov...
- maxerickson 10y ago
  What's so bad about attaching a covenant to a piece of land and then subdividing it? (this is a rough euphemism for a zoning ordinance, where people buy land in cities with standing agreements not to do stupid shit that bothers their neighbors)
- TillE 10y ago
  > Not a problem by my standards FWIW, basically everyone in the world disagrees with you. Sunlight is an essential factor in building codes.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    That's why it was such a ridiculous and inapplicable hypothetical to raise in this discussion. One only notices a box on a hill when it is one's strict intention to do so.
    - 2muchcoffeeman 10y ago
      Unless the box is orange and placed around an area that was ear marked to become a park and a popular hiking spot. Then maybe everyone that goes up there will notice your box.
      - gravypod 10y ago
        If it was on it's way too becoming a park why was it put to auction?
        2muchcoffeeman 10y ago
        I can't say. But it's linked to at the beginning of the article. Residents had apparently worked to prevent development of the area.
        jessaustin 10y ago
        Who are these people that have the time to hassle property owners, city officials, and "criminal" (read: wrong skin color) "park" visitors on a regular basis, but can't pony up $20k among the whole group to actually get done what they claim to want done? At least we've backed off from the "this is just like building a giant dome over your neighbor's house to deprive them of all sunlight" analogy. That was silly.
- randycupertino 10y ago
  > "I don't care what you do next to my property. It is your property." Awesome. Can't wait to establish my crack den/brothel/suboxone clinic/for profit prison/coal mine/pesticide factory/eurotrash party house as your next door neighbor. Zoning regulations a reason.
- oh_sigh 10y ago
  Such easy things to say when you're just dealing with a hypothetical. You almost certainly do care what your neighbors do(or don't do).
Overtonwindow 10y ago
You've managed to simplify the argument into a yes/no question. Congratulations. You have also managed to completely avoid the central issue: It's his land. Like it or not it's his. If you want to pass ordinances regulating the height of walls and structures go for it. Otherwise, kindly go pound sand.

gravypod 10y ago

Not a problem by my standards. I don't care what you do next to my property. It is your property. But also, that is not what happened. He did what amounted to putting a box on a hill.

cylinder 10y ago
I'll put a parabolic reflector on my property to focus sunlight into a single point on your house, setting it on fire. It's my property so I do what I want. Libertarian nonsense falls apart so quickly.
- icebraining 10y ago
  No, because that would cause damage to others' property, which isn't allowed in propertarianist theories.
  - cylinder 10y ago
    Denial of sunshine isn't damage?
    - gravypod 10y ago
      Fire can directly kill someone. A shadow cannot directly kill someone. Can you please shed some light on how you think these two things are remotely the same? (Had to sneak in the pun)
      - im4w1l 10y ago
        What about my super expensive potted plants that shrivel and die from the lack of sunshine?
        gravypod 10y ago
        You have multiple paths for recourse. Your plants don't need to be inside, you can install a sun roof, you can get lights, or finally you can talk to your neighbor.
- gravypod 10y ago
  > I'll put a parabolic reflector on my property to focus sunlight into a single point on your house, setting it on fire The difference is that Robert Rhinehart isn't setting fire to people or directly harming them. The difference is that you are trying to directly cause serious bodily harm. This is the worst analogy possible. The right analogy would be do I have the right to say "he has a parabolic reflector on his property that could start a fire. He needs to remove it." To me, that is unreasonable. > Libertarian nonsense falls apart so quickly Only under the scrutiny of logic with more holes then Swiss cheese. If you'd like to debate libertarian policies then I'm all ears. My email is in my profile.
- dmix 10y ago
  Wonderful example of a strawman attack if I've ever seen one. Ignoring the obvious property rights issues and the fact that the majority of libertarians still support the existence of limited government interference, even the most hardcore anarcho-capitalists who aren't covered by the above still believe in a non-aggression principle which would clearly be violated. But that is small percentage of an already small group.
  - dwaltrip 10y ago
    There is no aggression involved in blocking all sunlight from someone's windows? I would beg to differ. Aggression is not a trivial concept to define.
    - dmix 10y ago
      It's "non aggression" principal not "no aggression"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle?wprov...
maxerickson 10y ago
What's so bad about attaching a covenant to a piece of land and then subdividing it? (this is a rough euphemism for a zoning ordinance, where people buy land in cities with standing agreements not to do stupid shit that bothers their neighbors)
TillE 10y ago
> Not a problem by my standards FWIW, basically everyone in the world disagrees with you. Sunlight is an essential factor in building codes.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  That's why it was such a ridiculous and inapplicable hypothetical to raise in this discussion. One only notices a box on a hill when it is one's strict intention to do so.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 10y ago
    Unless the box is orange and placed around an area that was ear marked to become a park and a popular hiking spot. Then maybe everyone that goes up there will notice your box.
    - gravypod 10y ago
      If it was on it's way too becoming a park why was it put to auction?
      - 2muchcoffeeman 10y ago
        I can't say. But it's linked to at the beginning of the article. Residents had apparently worked to prevent development of the area.
        jessaustin 10y ago
        Who are these people that have the time to hassle property owners, city officials, and "criminal" (read: wrong skin color) "park" visitors on a regular basis, but can't pony up $20k among the whole group to actually get done what they claim to want done? At least we've backed off from the "this is just like building a giant dome over your neighbor's house to deprive them of all sunlight" analogy. That was silly.
randycupertino 10y ago
> "I don't care what you do next to my property. It is your property." Awesome. Can't wait to establish my crack den/brothel/suboxone clinic/for profit prison/coal mine/pesticide factory/eurotrash party house as your next door neighbor. Zoning regulations a reason.
oh_sigh 10y ago
Such easy things to say when you're just dealing with a hypothetical. You almost certainly do care what your neighbors do(or don't do).

Overtonwindow 10y ago

You've managed to simplify the argument into a yes/no question. Congratulations. You have also managed to completely avoid the central issue: It's his land. Like it or not it's his. If you want to pass ordinances regulating the height of walls and structures go for it. Otherwise, kindly go pound sand.