I love the word penumbra — the shaded area between light and dark . The word has a wonderful ring. Let me propose a matter that is (to me) an ethical penumbra.
The article below came out of a discussion with a next door neighbor who was livid that backyard fireworks were going off about 10 houses away. We (my family) thought it was great since we didn’t have to travel for what turned out to be dueling fireworks displays. We (my family again) discussed our neighbor’s view and his possible actions.
While I do not like the state, I could not find fault with someone wanting to protect his property (he never called, just paced back in forth in a lather).
So, here is the ethical penumbra: When is it OK to use the state in defense of property? The issue is not my neighbor as his property was far from the fireworks. The issue is other property owners in closer proximity to falling debris.
Don’t be a Libertarian Tattletale
What is the difference between tattling and telling? As a father, I know that tattling is something that needs to be addressed every so often. My rule – not subject to debate – is that tattling occurs when one of my children attempts to use the family apparatus of coercion and compulsion (me) in order to gain an advantage over another. Accordingly, tattling does not occur when the tale revolves around the protection of property or life. Therefore, telling me that my middle son is (say) set to jump from his bedroom window to the trampling below is not tattling, while snickering that another sibling skipped her morning job is. Let’s apply the Fedako Rule of Tattling to adult life?
Last year we purchased an Easy Set pool for use in our backyard. Easy Set pools live up to their name: simply place on level ground, attach the electric pump and filter (included), blow up the outer ring, and fill with water. With no real effort, you can have a pool that is four feet high and 18 feet in diameter, as well as a summer of family fun for less than a public or private pool membership. That is until the township zoning goons spot your pool and start sending notices for removal or fine.
It is at this point that the collectivist cries, “Those pools are an attractive nuisance, they are dangerous.” But the pool is almost five feet high (when you include the inflatable ring), requiring a removable ladder to enter. So, even accepting the collective concept of nuisance – and setting aside my own desire to not see someone else’s children harmed, the pools pose no real danger. Certainly no more danger than the trees that sit on my property – gravity being a undeniable and lethal force. Of course, some folks see things differently, and those folks inserted regulations into the zoning code to preclude my enjoyment of backyard fun. That said, pools are not the only way to enjoy the summer in your backyard.
In Ohio, fireworks are legal to buy but illegal to set off. Around the holidays, licensed fireworks distributors open their doors to sell fireworks. The consumers are mostly Ohioans who have filled out a state-mandated form swearing to set off those very same fireworks in some other state. Please, those fireworks are set off in backyards across Ohio.
Certainly, a fireworks display brings enjoyment to the property owner, as well as some (if not all) of his friends and neighbors. However, besides the colors and sounds, fireworks also rain sparks and smoldering debris over adjoining properties, creating real and potential threats to those homeowners.
So, here is the current situation: pools that violate zoning and fireworks that violate state law. Now, back to tattling and telling.
On a family bike ride through our neighborhood, we noticed a few Easy Set pools. My children wanted to know why we could not have ours when some neighbors had theirs. My answer: Zoning, as well as government enforcement in general, is arbitrary at best.
The next question was expected. Should we tell on our neighbors for violating the zoning code? My answer: No, that would be tattling. The reasoning is simple: zoning regulations are a collective theft of property rights. Our only reason for tattling would be to gain an advantage over our neighbors – the power to control their property through the use of the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion. We can’t have our pool, so you can’t have yours.
Hey, if these folks can get away with a small act of civil disobedience, the more power to them. They have not aggressed against my property nor violated a contract. The state is the aggressor and violator. Besides, I do not want to support the state by acting as its volunteer agent.
What about fireworks? What is the appropriate response in this instance? The answer is a little more complicated since the answer depends on where your property sits relative to the fireworks display.
I have only been an outside observer (literally), watching from a good distance the colors and sounds. If I lived where sparks and debris were falling on my property, I could make the call to the county sheriff. In this instance, I am seeking protection for my property from the cartelized protection racket. This is well within my rights since I would not be using government to gain an advantage over my neighbors (I refer to ethical rights, not legal rights). I would merely be protecting my property from aggression.
Could I call the police in order to protect my neighbor’s property in his absence should his property sit beneath the fireworks display? If you have an agreement with your neighbor that includes property protection, call. Additionally, if you truly believe that his property will be damaged, call. Otherwise, if you have no property-based reason for stopping the display, remain silent. It could be that all adjoining property owners have agreed to the risk.
Again, we are not agents of the state who must report every violation of law, or any violation for that matter. We are simply acting men and women who have the right to protect our property from aggression.
Sadly, in Ohio, the police likely will not enforce your fireworks complaint – they will not protect your property. However, they will act as the gun wielding muscle should you ignore the zoning folks and decide to keep your pool.
That settled, let’s add a twist: Your neighbor builds a fence that violates the restrictive covenant of your development. Do you have a right to complain and seek action? Absolutely. In this instance, your neighbor violated a contract he freely signed.
Occasionally you read about the so-called patriot who installs the 100-foot flagpole and spot lighting in a neighborhood where the restrictive covenant precludes such a display. The patriot claims that he has a right to show his love of flag and country, “That’s what our soldiers fought and died for.” This is a perversion of liberty: the belief that the desire to worship the flag supersedes any contract previously signed. Usually the media and sundry statists rush to his defense, making the homeowners association the evil usurper of the right of patriotism. The reality could not be further from the truth.
So, a libertarian can complain and seek action for actual wrongs. — tell when appropriate, but do not tattle. And never use the state to your advantage.
note: It’s true, local police will not enforce fireworks laws. But they have threatened me for drifting through a subdivision intersection while bike riding. The idea being that if I come to a complete stop at every stop sign, no more neighborhood car break-ins or armed home invasions (one occurrence). The state’s perverse version of the broken window theory.
{ 18 comments }
“My rule – not subject to debate – is that tattling occurs when one of my children attempts to use the family apparatus of coercion and compulsion (me) in order to gain an advantage over another.”
Interesting rule. I guess you must have the omniscient power to know the motives of your children.
So in a nutshell, it’s ethical to call upon the state to act as one’s agent to defend one’s legitimate claim, whereas it is unethical to call upon the state to do one’s bidding to enforce an illegitimate claim. Seems simple enough.
I didn’t get the part about gliding through stop signs on the one hand, and car break ins and home invasions on the other.
Charles,
Interesting. If not the parent, then who runs the show? Are parent and children to be considered co-equals, with the state deciding right and wrong — the current situation? Hmmm.
Mr. Fedako,
Nice analogy using the physical phenomenon of a light source freely projecting disinterested “enlightenment” in all directions. I see the “shadow object” as a metaphor for the interventionist state; the umbra is the individual liberties unconsciously ceded (probably not recoverable) to state control; the penumbra is ongoing, positive state interventions (think Patriot Act or the “the gun wielding muscle”) and finally the area outside any vestige of shadow represents attainable, disinterested wisdom.
The state does a fine job of enlisting small-minded individuals into its service of “coercion and compulsion” using patriotism and other forms of state propaganda. For me, your article provided a reminder of a timeless clarion call for all lovers of liberty – seek the light.
P.S. Seeking, in this case, implies life-long pursuit…lately, however, running to the light may be more appropriate.
Mr. Fedako,
Nice analogy using the physical phenomenon of a light source freely projecting disinterested “enlightenment” in all directions. I see the “shadow object” as a metaphor for the interventionist state; the umbra is the individual liberties unconsciously ceded (probably not recoverable) to state control; the penumbra is ongoing, positive state interventions (think Patriot Act or the “the gun wielding muscle”) and finally the area outside any vestige of shadow represents attainable, disinterested wisdom.
The state does a fine job of enlisting small-minded individuals into its service of “coercion and compulsion” using patriotism and other forms of state propaganda. For me, your article provided a reminder of a timeless clarion call for all lovers of liberty – seek the light.
P.S. Seeking, in this case, implies life-long pursuit…lately, however, running to the light may be more appropriate.
Mr. Fedako,
Nice analogy using the physical phenomenon of a light source freely projecting disinterested “enlightenment” in all directions. I see the “shadow object” as a metaphor for the interventionist state; the umbra is the individual liberties unconsciously ceded (probably not recoverable) to state control; the penumbra is ongoing, positive state interventions (think Patriot Act or the “the gun wielding muscle”) and finally the area outside any vestige of shadow represents attainable, disinterested wisdom.
The state does a fine job of enlisting small-minded individuals into its service of “coercion and compulsion” using patriotism and other forms of state propaganda. For me, your article provided a reminder of a timeless clarion call for all lovers of liberty – seek the light.
P.S. Seeking, in this case, implies life-long pursuit…lately, however, running to the light may be more appropriate.
Interesting behavior of the blog software. Doesn’t seem to return an acknowledgement of clicking the submit button nor release back to the current page. May be a stupid user trick on my part….sorry for the repeat submissions.
josh m,
“I didn’t get the part about gliding through stop signs on the one hand, and car break ins and home invasions on the other.”
I don’t get it either. And that’s the point.
The police began patrolling my neighborhood after the incidents listed above. The state solution is to embrace the broken window theory — ala Rudy Giuliani in NYC — and employ full force in order to stop minor violations of law. The belief is that by doing so, the larger aggressions on life and property disappear.
So the cop that followed my through my neighborhood, making certain that I put a foot down at every stop sign, believed he was protecting life and property. That, or he simply enjoyed wielding his power over me.
I missed the causation and correlation of my complete stops and secured property. But, then again, I am not a so-called public servant qua government policeman.
If you don’t like people looking through your window, buy curtains. If you don’t like hearing fireworks, buy earplugs. There is no need for state involvement.
“If not the parent, then who runs the show?”
Who cares?
Your “rule – not subject to debate” works fine and dandy in your family because nobody outside your family gives a damn about your family. You can exercise all of the coercion you want and nobody is going to challenge your judgement.
However, your “rule – not subject to debate” implies judging actions based on the motives of the actors. In a blog of Austrian economics, I find it shocking that I have to remind you that it is impossible to know the motives of an other person.
Charles,
You sound a little tense … anyway.
You are missing the whole concept of Liberty: property. My property, my rules. Don’t like the rules, stay off my property. On my property, my rules are not subject to debate.
While on my property, I can be as capricious as I choose. That’s my right. Unless we have a contract stating otherwise, I can change my rules on the fly — and sorry about your luck.
And, on my property, it’s my subjective valuations that hold the day. The intent of other actors is not necessarily my concern as a property owner. Whether you hit my mailbox on purpose or accident, you must still pay to fix it (that is, if I choose to make you pay).
If you violate one of my rules, I don’t need to know your motives. I may be interested in why you acted as you did, but I can apply my subjective, ever-changing rules as I see fit (absent a contract and with respect to your ownership of your body, of course).
You seem to be confusing the principles of Liberty with the rules posted — or not posted, for that matter — on the edge of a property line. There’s a big difference between the two.
(some not all) Roots of the problem
Coercion and compulsion type of (government citys, towns, air space)
The need of private citys, towns, air space.
If we aproach the problem by first thinking, what would I do in the absence of the state (or State, City, County, etc), then the solution probably starts by approaching your neighbor and investigating the situation closer. Is it a bunch of kids or sober adults? Do they appear to know what they’re doing? Is there a hose with splenty of slack close at hand? And does the point of view from their yard provide an open clearing and a place where the debris will fall clear from other houses. You can’t tell everything from a quick once over, especially if you don’t know the neighbor, but I think this first step can save a lot of headaches, and perhaps diminish the state’s influence
Kevin,
I am interested in these situational issues you mention with the firework shooting neighbor. I see the State in this instance as a force which in addition to violating property rights also encourages neighbors not to get to know each other personally and talk through concerns before problems emerge in the first place. Introducing a sort of an anti-community pressure.
I often get violent thunderstorms come through my suburbs, which keep me awake with their noises- which branch of the State is responsible, and how much can i collect for the state not keeping the weather tidy? (What else is a Weather Bureau for, after all?)
You should mention this to your neighbours, and get a Weather Action Group going!
M,
Mr. Fedako,
Interesting. If not the parent, then who runs the show? Are parent and children to be considered co-equals, with the state deciding right and wrong — the current situation? Hmmm.
Can you stop (by force) someone form leaving your property who the father and mother placed in the middle of their property when that someone (child) was not placed in the first place by force against their will in the middle of your property by your (father, mother) choice?
If so would you lose control (your laws on your property) of them (children) when their off your property?
They (child) own there conscience and body (someone’s else’s private property), but you own your property, you are a landlord and you can make your own rules (laws) on your property as long as you don’t violate their property
Or are the children are free to leave when they wish to?
In the true Free Market?
On the other hand, would (a?) the Free Market stop them from going at the wrong time and inpower them to go at the right time?
And there are lots more Q’s to be asked.
I think the difference between tattling and telling, as you differ, is what the expected result will be.
Some may say that this is determining someone else’s motive, but I think it is what the inclination to your motive is, which you can know, because it’s yours. It’s the way you recognize someone’s attempt at power over your judgement/will (e.g. news “spin”).
Speaking of enforcement of certain laws, maybe the fireworks law is barely enforced because of the [sheer] number of calls they receive on particular nights (12/31, etc.), thus on those nights a majority or significant minority “vote” for the right to set off fireworks, if only by “dispersing” the police force so that a majority (used loosely) of these fireworks displays cannot possibly be dealt with within the time period required for their satisfaction. In contrast, one man on one bicycle (even if it’s built for two) in one locality SHOULD be a cinch for one coppa to synch with the law [of the land]. This is probably obvious and unnecessary to say.
Where is the line drawn? This “line” is the symbolic existence of the difference between your judgement and his[, however faulty either is]. If you give in, the line “moves” toward you. If you don’t like the line moving toward you, then you wouldn’t do likewise to him, and we couldn’t address the line moving toward him. But no matter what we decide is “fair” (where the line is set still), we must remember that if enough people do not follow our idea of “fair”,[ however "foolish" we would say,] our notion may no longer exist. If there is truth among people, therefore, it must exist above people’s changing notions, and thus definitively determining such is transitive[, maybe an ideal for the transitive nature of our being].
Whoops, I used the word transitive instead of transient.
Comments on this entry are closed.