5 ms·

You cannot be serious. Just because you happen to own the property does not give you absolute rights. What you are arguing against is called zoning and the le

You cannot be serious. Just because you happen to own the property does not give you absolute rights. What you are arguing against is called zoning and the legality of that is very well settled. The tannery example is pretty apt here - what right do you have to run a foul smelling eyesore right beside the property where I'm attempting to raise a family?

TeMPOraL 13y ago
> what right do you have to run a foul smelling eyesore right beside the property where I'm attempting to raise a family? He has every right to do this. Why do you assume that your family is more important than his tannery? The regulations against things like tannery in an apartment are only there so that you can, when e.g. choosing a place to raise your family, find a place that will suit your requirements. It's like labels on food. You want something without sugar? You go and find something labeled "sugar-free". Regulations are there only to help you choose what you want. You don't look at a sugar drink and then ask "what rights does a food company have to put sugar in my drink when I'm trying to stay on keto?".
- wavefunction 13y ago
  That's why we have zoning, so tanners can go tan hides and residential areas remain for residing. It's like y'all are trying to reinvent practices long derived from observation and common sense. If you don't like a property's zoning, then don't buy it or go through the process to change the zoning.
- HarryHirsch 13y ago
  You could argue that this question has been discussed before, and that that is the reason why there are laws against noxious businesses in populated areas. If you want to operate that tannery of yours you had better have a good case and make it. If it's just your right against theirs, that is the short path to "direct action", and you cannot have that in a civilized society. You could also argue that you have the right to operate that tannery of yours but choose not to exercise it out of consideration of the people who will suffer from the stench. That would be the aristocratic viewpoint, argued eloquently by Ernst Jünger in the "Ledge at Masirah". Either way, there is such a thing of society, and anyone arguing cleanly has to take that into account.
- nathanstitt 13y ago
  As HarryHirsch says, no he absolutely does not have that right. Zoning is far from a new invention, it's been around since the industrial revolution at least. I'm honestly shocked that people apparently would want to live in the kind of an environment where at any second the property next door could be turned into a tannery. How could anyone have confidence in their property's value in a society where that was allowed?
  - baddox 13y ago
    There is more than one to solve social problems. Centralized, violent, compulsory action (government) is one way, but there are others. Opposing "the government solution" is not the same thing as denying the problem or refusing to fix it.
    - namdnay 13y ago
      How are zoning regulations "violent"?
      - vacri 13y ago
        It's a standard libertarian meme. Resist the government long enough and eventually - eventually might take years - someone wearing a gun will come and arrest you. Since they're arresting you with superior arms to the point of perhaps pointing them at you, this means doing so is violent, hence everything the government ever does is 'backed by violence', hence everything they ever do to limit you in any way is 'violen', no matter how minor that limitation might be. It's one of the more tortuous aspects of libertarian rhetoric.
        baddox 13y ago
        This is one of those ideas that became a meme because it is unquestionably true. Ideas which are true tend to spread quickly. And, regarding this specific example, it's ludicrous to claim that it might take years if you violate zoning regulations. It would be more like hours.
ahallock 13y ago
That should really depend on the contracts and negotiations between property owners, tenants, etc. Maybe you don't mind living next to that "eyesore" because it's much cheaper and you can afford private schooling for your children. Everything is a cost/benefit, and people may be willing to sacrifice one thing for another, so have a little empathy.
- davidw 13y ago
  I think you missed the point of "externality": the people affected by the externality are not party to the negotiations. In other words, when I buy the house next to yours, and from one day to the next, decide to use it to store decaying pig shit in the yard, or manufacture high explosives, all of a sudden, you got something really nasty that you did not choose. It's not as if you chose to move next door knowing full well what goes on in my business. All of a sudden, the value of your house has dropped, and you haven't been compensated for it at all. I agree that zoning and restrictions should be regulated at a local level so that multiple solutions can arise, but it seems like trying to involve neighbors in contract negotiations becomes quite complicated quickly. The guy 2 houses down has seen his house fall in value too, although maybe not quite so much. The guy 20 houses away might still smell things on a bad day, so he's affected a little bit too, should he be included in negotiations as well?
  - ahallock 13y ago
    I agree with what you're saying for the most part. I think, though, that people want to get along and social pressure can work for a lot of these situations. Regulations do not always work in your favor, though, and do not always protect people. For example, where I live in Cleveland, there used to be a rule that policeman (and I think most civil servants) had to live inside the city limits to work there. Once they removed the regulation, these workers sold their homes and left. The property value has dropped considerably as a result.
baddox 13y ago
> What you are arguing against is called zoning and the legality of that is very well settled. Indeed. I am seriously arguing against zoning, or rather, against the necessity and wisdom of government (i.e. violent, compulsory) action to solve this problem.
- HarryHirsch 13y ago
  The alternative would be a society not based on the law, but on connections and reputation - real-life examples would be a Brazilian favela, Wikipedia, the Iceland of the Sagas. Not something I'd prefer.
  - saurik 13y ago
    (I am sorry: I accidentally down-voted you on my iPhone when I meant to up vote you. I leave this explicit note to make certain you know you should have two more points on this comment than you do.)
  - baddox 13y ago
    That is not the alternative. Depending on your definition of "law," it doesn't necessarily imply government. In fact, a lot of functioning "law" today is non-governmental (one reason for this is the unsurprisingly high cost and inefficiency of the government's conflict mediation system). But moreover, even regardless of your definition of "law," it's naive to assume that the way government works isn't "based on connections and reputation" in just as bad of a way as you expect a government-less society might be.

TeMPOraL 13y ago

> what right do you have to run a foul smelling eyesore right beside the property where I'm attempting to raise a family? He has every right to do this. Why do you assume that your family is more important than his tannery? The regulations against things like tannery in an apartment are only there so that you can, when e.g. choosing a place to raise your family, find a place that will suit your requirements. It's like labels on food. You want something without sugar? You go and find something labeled "sugar-free". Regulations are there only to help you choose what you want. You don't look at a sugar drink and then ask "what rights does a food company have to put sugar in my drink when I'm trying to stay on keto?".

wavefunction 13y ago
That's why we have zoning, so tanners can go tan hides and residential areas remain for residing. It's like y'all are trying to reinvent practices long derived from observation and common sense. If you don't like a property's zoning, then don't buy it or go through the process to change the zoning.
HarryHirsch 13y ago
You could argue that this question has been discussed before, and that that is the reason why there are laws against noxious businesses in populated areas. If you want to operate that tannery of yours you had better have a good case and make it. If it's just your right against theirs, that is the short path to "direct action", and you cannot have that in a civilized society. You could also argue that you have the right to operate that tannery of yours but choose not to exercise it out of consideration of the people who will suffer from the stench. That would be the aristocratic viewpoint, argued eloquently by Ernst Jünger in the "Ledge at Masirah". Either way, there is such a thing of society, and anyone arguing cleanly has to take that into account.
nathanstitt 13y ago
As HarryHirsch says, no he absolutely does not have that right. Zoning is far from a new invention, it's been around since the industrial revolution at least. I'm honestly shocked that people apparently would want to live in the kind of an environment where at any second the property next door could be turned into a tannery. How could anyone have confidence in their property's value in a society where that was allowed?
- baddox 13y ago
  There is more than one to solve social problems. Centralized, violent, compulsory action (government) is one way, but there are others. Opposing "the government solution" is not the same thing as denying the problem or refusing to fix it.
  - namdnay 13y ago
    How are zoning regulations "violent"?
    - vacri 13y ago
      It's a standard libertarian meme. Resist the government long enough and eventually - eventually might take years - someone wearing a gun will come and arrest you. Since they're arresting you with superior arms to the point of perhaps pointing them at you, this means doing so is violent, hence everything the government ever does is 'backed by violence', hence everything they ever do to limit you in any way is 'violen', no matter how minor that limitation might be. It's one of the more tortuous aspects of libertarian rhetoric.
      - baddox 13y ago
        This is one of those ideas that became a meme because it is unquestionably true. Ideas which are true tend to spread quickly. And, regarding this specific example, it's ludicrous to claim that it might take years if you violate zoning regulations. It would be more like hours.

ahallock 13y ago

That should really depend on the contracts and negotiations between property owners, tenants, etc. Maybe you don't mind living next to that "eyesore" because it's much cheaper and you can afford private schooling for your children. Everything is a cost/benefit, and people may be willing to sacrifice one thing for another, so have a little empathy.

davidw 13y ago
I think you missed the point of "externality": the people affected by the externality are not party to the negotiations. In other words, when I buy the house next to yours, and from one day to the next, decide to use it to store decaying pig shit in the yard, or manufacture high explosives, all of a sudden, you got something really nasty that you did not choose. It's not as if you chose to move next door knowing full well what goes on in my business. All of a sudden, the value of your house has dropped, and you haven't been compensated for it at all. I agree that zoning and restrictions should be regulated at a local level so that multiple solutions can arise, but it seems like trying to involve neighbors in contract negotiations becomes quite complicated quickly. The guy 2 houses down has seen his house fall in value too, although maybe not quite so much. The guy 20 houses away might still smell things on a bad day, so he's affected a little bit too, should he be included in negotiations as well?
- ahallock 13y ago
  I agree with what you're saying for the most part. I think, though, that people want to get along and social pressure can work for a lot of these situations. Regulations do not always work in your favor, though, and do not always protect people. For example, where I live in Cleveland, there used to be a rule that policeman (and I think most civil servants) had to live inside the city limits to work there. Once they removed the regulation, these workers sold their homes and left. The property value has dropped considerably as a result.

baddox 13y ago

> What you are arguing against is called zoning and the legality of that is very well settled. Indeed. I am seriously arguing against zoning, or rather, against the necessity and wisdom of government (i.e. violent, compulsory) action to solve this problem.

HarryHirsch 13y ago
The alternative would be a society not based on the law, but on connections and reputation - real-life examples would be a Brazilian favela, Wikipedia, the Iceland of the Sagas. Not something I'd prefer.
- saurik 13y ago
  (I am sorry: I accidentally down-voted you on my iPhone when I meant to up vote you. I leave this explicit note to make certain you know you should have two more points on this comment than you do.)
- baddox 13y ago
  That is not the alternative. Depending on your definition of "law," it doesn't necessarily imply government. In fact, a lot of functioning "law" today is non-governmental (one reason for this is the unsurprisingly high cost and inefficiency of the government's conflict mediation system). But moreover, even regardless of your definition of "law," it's naive to assume that the way government works isn't "based on connections and reputation" in just as bad of a way as you expect a government-less society might be.