Comments (19)

• Ned Netterville

  God bless Leonard Read. He introduced my to libertarianism, and persuaded my of its inherent righteousness when I came upon my first copy of the THE FREEMAN, the magazine he edited and to which he frequently contributed cogent, common-sense commentary on freedom.

  Published: October 1, 2009 10:19 AM

• Michael Wilson

  Quoting Read: Everyone should be free "to do as he pleases in general, as long as he doesn't infringe the equal right and opportunity of every other person to do as he pleases."

  Am I the only person here who sees that this definition of freedom (because that is what it is) is CIRCULAR? One person wants to be free to sleep through the night without earplugs or sedatives, while his neighbor wants to be free to hold loud parties that last until 7 AM. Each can claim that the other's demands infringe his "equal right and opportunity" to do as he pleases.

  Published: October 1, 2009 2:05 PM

• Barry Loberfeld

  Leonard E. Read: A Portrait — a great FEE link.

  Published: October 1, 2009 2:35 PM

• Nathan

  I don't see a problem when you enter property into the equation. If you want to play loud music on your private property, no one should be able to stop you. However, if you signed a contract with a home owner association saying that your ownership is conditional to following certain rules, such as no loud music after a certain time, then you are obliged to abide by the contract.

  If a person is foolish enough to buy property where he expects quiet, but his neighbors are under no contract or obligation to abide by that request, then that's his fault for not properly investigating the property and it's neighbors.

  Published: October 1, 2009 2:41 PM

• George

  Michael Wilson,

  The action of the first guy sleeping does not bring any harm to the second guy at all. It is the action of the second guy in throwing loud parties that brings harm to the first guy.

  If the sleeper was not there, then the other guy could throw his parties, but since the other guy IS there, doing so would be a disturbance. The spirit of this message is voluntary cooperation, and a restraint against force and fraud against others. It is NOT "do whatever the hell you want, whenever you want".

  Published: October 1, 2009 3:02 PM

• George

  Nathan,

  "If a person is foolish enough to buy property where he expects quiet, but his neighbors are under no contract or obligation to abide by that request, then that's his fault for not properly investigating the property and it's neighbors."

  I disagree with this. Loud noise which prevents people from sleeping is a form of aggression, and unless the person who buys property there agrees to waive his rights to a peaceful night of sleep then he has every right to expect non-aggression from his neighbours.

  Published: October 1, 2009 3:07 PM

• Franklin

  "The action of the first guy sleeping does not bring any harm to the second guy at all. It is the action of the second guy in throwing loud parties that brings harm to the first guy."

  Precisely. A property infringement.
  And please, to those who are so inclined, spare me the, "Well, if I have a religious aversion to the color violet, and the neighbor paints his house that very color, is not the spectrum infringing upon my property and undermining my right to avert that heinous light....?"

  And yes, I've heard it often. Believe it or not.
  

  Published: October 1, 2009 3:24 PM

• Nathan

  George,

  I believe that all rights come from property. If it's my property, I can do anything I want with it, which includes throwing parties, regardless of the time.

  I would only be violating your rights if I threw a party on your property.

  It reminds me of something the FCC said with regardes to a complaint - that a neighbor was broadcasting and it was interferring with someone's reception. The FCC said that it is up to you to filter out a broadcast that you're not interested in.

  While I may disagree with most of what the FCC does, and it's very existence - I agree with what they said. My ownership of the land doesn't extend to the radio / sound waves passing through the air above it. If you don't like what I do on my property, and your property is located close enough that the exercise of my rights over my property could bother you, then you have a few options. Move, filter it out, etc. Maybe next time you won't buy property without first investigating how your neighbors like to pursue their happiness.

  Published: October 1, 2009 3:36 PM

• Jason Gordon

  Nathan, the FCC is wrong (as is your appeal to authority argument). Noise pollution is a real thing -- like any other form of pollution emitted from one's property.

  Published: October 1, 2009 3:47 PM

• Zach Bush

  Or the sleeper could just politely ask the partyer (spelling?) to turn down the music.

  The partyer could also, in advance of the party, notify his neighbors that there will be a party.

  @George,

  If you believe loud music that prevents sleep is an act of aggression, do you also believe that smoking is an act of aggression? If so, do you support government bans on smoking?

  If your answers are yes then you do not understand libertarian philosophy.

  Rothbard took issue with these types of cases. It is on this site, but I currently cannot remember the name.

  Published: October 1, 2009 4:01 PM

• George

  Apologies if I am about to double post, but it looks like my previous reply got lost...

  "I believe that all rights come from property. If it's my property, I can do anything I want with it, which includes throwing parties, regardless of the time."

  Yes you can, as long as you can keep your sound waves on your property, too. The moment they cross over onto my property and wake me up then it becomes aggression. I believe the burden is rather on you to build a sound wall, or simply not wake me up. :) Either that, or the property should have had an exemption for that when I purchased it.

  "If you believe loud music that prevents sleep is an act of aggression, do you also believe that smoking is an act of aggression? If so, do you support government bans on smoking?"

  If your smoke wafts over onto my property, then yes, it is an act of aggression. If you don't believe this, then you are also throwing out the whole libertarian concept of property rights and pollution control, and you are making a case for government intervention and regulation.

  No, I don't support government smoking bans on private property, but on public property it is their discretion should they choose to do so.

  Published: October 1, 2009 4:18 PM

• George Tirebiter

  "Every person should be free:
  to worship God in his own way, even if it isn't "orthodox." "
  Is every person also free to not worship 'God'? or are they only free to choose and worship some 'God', orthodox or not?
  

  Published: October 1, 2009 7:21 PM

• DougStewart

  George Tirebiter, I think yes every person is also free not to worship.
  BTW, are you the same GT as on WeAreSC.com? If so, Fight On!

  Published: October 1, 2009 8:10 PM

• bernardpalmer

  In an ideal America every person should be free...to post on a blog with out it having to be refereed as it is with this one.

  How ludicrous that Mises of all websites should stop some one posting their opinions.

  Published: October 2, 2009 6:40 AM

• Shay

  Franklin wrote, 'And please, to those who are so inclined, spare me the, "Well, if I have a religious aversion to the color violet, and the neighbor paints his house that very color, is not the spectrum infringing upon my property and undermining my right to avert that heinous light....?"'

  Well, I'll address that silly example anyway: he can put up a fence to block the color. Loud noise is nearly impossible to block, or "look" away from, unlike a sight. Noise and things emitted into the air (foul smells, toxic chemicals) infringe on neighbors' properties.
  

  Published: October 2, 2009 8:19 AM

• bernardpalmer

  Nobody is free in Socialism because under Socialism the government takes away your right to be responsible for yourself. All western democracies are Socialist simply because they use fiat money. Only Capitalism uses gold as money. Freedom is probably only found with gold.

  The ownership of your own body is your Primary Fundamental Right. Without this right all other rights pale into total insignificance. This right is agreeable with the 9th Amendment and usurps the inglorious 13th Amendment which allows some one convicted of a 'crime' to be treated as a slave. Consequently this amendment results in a predominance of long jail sentences caused by inappropriate laws, allowing for extra jails to be constructed primarily to bring employment to depressed areas and benefit the sitting member of the Socialist government.
  

  Published: October 2, 2009 10:43 PM

• Russ

  bernardpalmer wrote:

  "In an ideal America every person should be free...to post on a blog with out it having to be refereed as it is with this one.

  How ludicrous that Mises of all websites should stop some one posting their opinions."

  Either I'm missing some irony, or the above is idiotic. The people at mises.org *own* the server, and use *their own money* to keep it up and running. Why shouldn't they be able to control what goes on their own computer? It's not a publicly owned resource! If you owned a printing company, do you think you should be required to print anything that anybody wants, so that they can express their opinions?

  Granted, I do think that mises.org sometimes kills serious posts or threads because they are afraid it will make them look bad, not because the posts are uncivil. I recall a thread involving race, and once the discussion started to get interesting (i.e. no longer politically correct), the entire thread was killed. I do think that was a bit faint-hearted. But still, they had the right to do it.

  Published: October 2, 2009 11:01 PM

• Russ

  Nathan wrote:

  "I believe that all rights come from property. If it's my property, I can do anything I want with it, which includes throwing parties, regardless of the time."

  I believe that I have a right to my own body, but I *don't* have a right to do anything I want with it. My right to swing my fist stops at your nose.

  It's the same with parties. If you can somehow prevent the sound waves from coming into your neighbors' airspace, then you do indeed have the right to throw a party any time. But if your party interferes with a neighbor's airspace, you don't have the right to do it.

  It's also just plain bad manners.

  Published: October 3, 2009 12:03 AM

• Russ

  Zach Bush wrote:

  "Or the sleeper could just politely ask the partyer (spelling?) to turn down the music."

  What if the partyer politely refuses?

  "The partyer could also, in advance of the party, notify his neighbors that there will be a party."

  This is like saying that it's OK to pee in your neighbor's pool, as long as you notify him in advance that you are going to do so.

  Published: October 3, 2009 12:10 AM