5 ms·

I'm with you on this one. The less the government messes with freedom the better. I'd rather a bit of visual pollution over a loss of even a small amount of fre

by xupybd 4y ago

I'm with you on this one. The less the government messes with freedom the better. I'd rather a bit of visual pollution over a loss of even a small amount of freedom.

marssaxman 4y ago
I would agree with you, if - and only if - the government also refrains from messing with my freedom to deface those billboards, so they no longer pollute the commons.
- xupybd 4y ago
  Can I then deface your house as I don't like the color?
  - marssaxman 4y ago
    In this hypothetical world of maximal freedom, I suppose you could. I couldn't very well stop you, and the government obviously wouldn't be messing with your freedom to paint other people's houses. The less the government messes with your freedom the better, eh? I suppose that if I didn't like the color, perhaps I'd repaint your house in retaliation. What a mess it'd all be.
    - xupybd 4y ago
      Obviously total freedom is not possible or desirable. You'd need to be free to kill others. My position is that visual pollution is not such a great concern that we should restrict how someone paints their building.
      - marssaxman 4y ago
        Well, okay: now we can have a reasonable discussion. It's not actually about freedom, it's about how big a deal it is to pollute the commons with advertising. This is a question on which reasonable people may have differing opinions. How are we to sort it out? A majority vote might be one mechanism. Selection of representatives who can research the issue and negotiate compromises might be another.
        xupybd 4y ago
        My uneducated theory on this is that the problem with government interferences is proportional to the distance between you and the bureaucrat making the decision. For example, if a world government said we don't want anyone wearing yellow hats. That's a problem because over the globe there are going to be some odd folks that care very much about their yellow hats (insert hypothetical religion / cause here). But if you get together with your neighbours and say let’s create a pact to legally require that all people remove their yellow hats from our gated community, well fine if you love yellow hats, you probably don't like these yellow hat haters anyway, who cares if they don't let you into their street. That same could be done in local areas. But I think central business districts or areas that have a huge number of commuters there are just too many people involved. You now must have a lot more of a justification for the freedoms that are lost. That said if all the building owners want to put that restriction in I'm all for it.
badtension 4y ago
There's a ton of freedom already taken from you for the benefit of society, like driving on one side of the road or stopping at intersections. I don't think you mind those?
- xupybd 4y ago
  Each case has it's own cost benefit. I think the road rules have benefits that outweigh the costs. I don't think the government should be able to dictate how people dress their building. Be that painting them bright green or putting up advertising. Just as they shouldn't tell me how to dress.
  - cgrealy 4y ago
    Governments do have rules about the look of buildings. There are zoning regulations about commercial vs residential properties. Many places around the world will require that your building conforms to the character of the local environment.
    - xupybd 4y ago
      A precedent doesn't prove it's an optimal solution.
version_five 4y ago
You can see from some of the comments the sort of nonsense that is standing in the way of just being left alone. I don't know when or how things got this bad, but i suspect HN comments are not very representative of reality, even amongst the readership here, just some vocal kids
- xupybd 4y ago
  I suspect we've had good times for so long people don't understand why it's so important to safe guard our freedoms.
- Bakary 4y ago
  How would you define being left alone? It is currently based on a very specific mixture of laws and customs that foster private property and other such concepts. You're also dependent on the safety and/or infrastructure in your local area. The wealth that makes this all possible in a developed country isn't attained by leaving people alone, either. I would contend that the idea of being conceptually separated from the community in a Randian sense IS the childlike fairytale in a way. Besides, there is a perfectly libertarian or even ancap way of looking at the advertisement problem. Billboards affect the quality of a city, and most of the people it affects aren't getting paid proceeds. So they can gang up together to ask for a better deal. And if they can't then they are being restricted by some non-libertarian force.
- cgrealy 4y ago
  > I suspect HN comments are not very representative of reality You're correct about that, but not in the way you think. This site actually tends to lean more libertarian than most people in the real world.

by xupybd 4y ago

I'm with you on this one. The less the government messes with freedom the better. I'd rather a bit of visual pollution over a loss of even a small amount of freedom.

marssaxman 4y ago

I would agree with you, if - and only if - the government also refrains from messing with my freedom to deface those billboards, so they no longer pollute the commons.

xupybd 4y ago
Can I then deface your house as I don't like the color?
- marssaxman 4y ago
  In this hypothetical world of maximal freedom, I suppose you could. I couldn't very well stop you, and the government obviously wouldn't be messing with your freedom to paint other people's houses. The less the government messes with your freedom the better, eh? I suppose that if I didn't like the color, perhaps I'd repaint your house in retaliation. What a mess it'd all be.
  - xupybd 4y ago
    Obviously total freedom is not possible or desirable. You'd need to be free to kill others. My position is that visual pollution is not such a great concern that we should restrict how someone paints their building.
    - marssaxman 4y ago
      Well, okay: now we can have a reasonable discussion. It's not actually about freedom, it's about how big a deal it is to pollute the commons with advertising. This is a question on which reasonable people may have differing opinions. How are we to sort it out? A majority vote might be one mechanism. Selection of representatives who can research the issue and negotiate compromises might be another.
      - xupybd 4y ago
        My uneducated theory on this is that the problem with government interferences is proportional to the distance between you and the bureaucrat making the decision. For example, if a world government said we don't want anyone wearing yellow hats. That's a problem because over the globe there are going to be some odd folks that care very much about their yellow hats (insert hypothetical religion / cause here). But if you get together with your neighbours and say let’s create a pact to legally require that all people remove their yellow hats from our gated community, well fine if you love yellow hats, you probably don't like these yellow hat haters anyway, who cares if they don't let you into their street. That same could be done in local areas. But I think central business districts or areas that have a huge number of commuters there are just too many people involved. You now must have a lot more of a justification for the freedoms that are lost. That said if all the building owners want to put that restriction in I'm all for it.

badtension 4y ago

There's a ton of freedom already taken from you for the benefit of society, like driving on one side of the road or stopping at intersections. I don't think you mind those?

xupybd 4y ago
Each case has it's own cost benefit. I think the road rules have benefits that outweigh the costs. I don't think the government should be able to dictate how people dress their building. Be that painting them bright green or putting up advertising. Just as they shouldn't tell me how to dress.
- cgrealy 4y ago
  Governments do have rules about the look of buildings. There are zoning regulations about commercial vs residential properties. Many places around the world will require that your building conforms to the character of the local environment.
  - xupybd 4y ago
    A precedent doesn't prove it's an optimal solution.

version_five 4y ago

You can see from some of the comments the sort of nonsense that is standing in the way of just being left alone. I don't know when or how things got this bad, but i suspect HN comments are not very representative of reality, even amongst the readership here, just some vocal kids

xupybd 4y ago
I suspect we've had good times for so long people don't understand why it's so important to safe guard our freedoms.
Bakary 4y ago
How would you define being left alone? It is currently based on a very specific mixture of laws and customs that foster private property and other such concepts. You're also dependent on the safety and/or infrastructure in your local area. The wealth that makes this all possible in a developed country isn't attained by leaving people alone, either. I would contend that the idea of being conceptually separated from the community in a Randian sense IS the childlike fairytale in a way. Besides, there is a perfectly libertarian or even ancap way of looking at the advertisement problem. Billboards affect the quality of a city, and most of the people it affects aren't getting paid proceeds. So they can gang up together to ask for a better deal. And if they can't then they are being restricted by some non-libertarian force.
cgrealy 4y ago
> I suspect HN comments are not very representative of reality You're correct about that, but not in the way you think. This site actually tends to lean more libertarian than most people in the real world.