Noise pollution

[BrassDragon]

I've been discussing Objectivism with a friend via e-mail, and I've been able to give convincing and well thought-out arguments for most of his objections.

But the topic of "noise pollution" has evaded me, and I admit, I need some help.

Does a person have the right to play loud music on his or her property if it disturbs the neighbors? If not, how can laws be created to reflect this (i.e. would there just have to be an arbitrary number of decibels that cannot be exceeded, or is there an objective way to determine how much noise is too much)?

My initial thought was that a person has the right to make as much noise as he likes on his property, and if it disturbs the neighbors, they can move, build a wall, etc.

But what about light pollution? What about polluting a public resource, like a river, where people like to swim?

It seems to come down to a problem of "property" that seems to be "public" by nature (i.e. the air, water, etc.)

My friends says he has a right to enjoy his property without a neighbor disturbing him by blasting loud music constantly, and that seems to make intuitive sense to me, so I'm at an impasse.

[DavidOdden]

It seems to come down to a problem of "property" that seems to be "public" by nature (i.e. the air, water, etc.)

It actually comes down to a problem of property that is private in nature. You have the right to make a stink and a racket on your own property, but no trespassing onto my property.

[BrassDragon]

It actually comes down to a problem of property that is private in nature. You have the right to make a stink and a racket on your own property, but no trespassing onto my property.

So if I live next to you, do I have the right to blast Nine Inch Nails music that's loud enough to keep you awake at night? Is there anything you can do about this other than building a wall or moving away?

Also, if we live on the river and you're right next to me downstream, do I have the right to pump my raw sewage into the river in order to dispose of it, ruining your beach and swimming area?

We'll assume there was no contract I signed before the property was sold to me, stipulating that I wouldn't "disturb the peace" in the neighborhood.

I think the fundamental problem is that a stream, or the ambient noise in the neighborhood, is neither mine nor yours, although it is something we share. Clearly, we can't both dispose of them the way we want, because my doing that precludes your doing that, in our scenario. So what is the rational way to solve the conflict?

(Just so you know... even though this is my 3rd post... I do mean these to be legitimate questions, not attacks on Objectivism, which I accept as far as I know and have a good understanding of... hopefully my question wouldn't suggest otherwise, although I know it might.)

*Edited by poster, for clarity.

Edited September 21, 2006 by BrassDragon

[Lathanar]

So if I live next to you, do I have the right to blast Nine Inch Nails music that's loud enough to keep you awake at night? Is there anything you can do about this other than building a wall or moving away?

I'd say you have the right to make as much noise as you want as long as it does not impair someone else's property, i.e. you need to sound proof yourself as best you can. The same can be said you can shoot a gun on your property all you want, but you better make sure the bullets don't go onto someone else's. You are initiating the action and are responsible for it's effects.

Also, if we live on the river and you're right next to me downstream, do I have the right to pump my raw sewage into the river in order to dispose of it, ruining your beach and swimming area?

Property damage issue.

We'll assume there was no contract I signed before the property was sold to me, stipulating that I wouldn't "disturb the peace" in the neighborhood.

That does not invalidate rights.

[Vladimir Berkov]

Some areas of law already address this where there is a contract but the contract doesn't specify a right to be free from noise. In leases, for instance, you have an implied "right of quiet enjoyment" of the premises. If you rent an apartment, and the landlord or another tenant starts pumping out the loud music at 3 AM you may have an enforceable legal right. Of course it is all contextual. If you rent an apartment next to a railroad track, you can't really complain that the train makes a lot of noise.

[BrassDragon]

Thanks to both of you for responding.

I'd say you have the right to make as much noise as you want as long as it does not impair someone else's property, i.e. you need to sound proof yourself as best you can. The same can be said you can shoot a gun on your property all you want, but you better make sure the bullets don't go onto someone else's. You are initiating the action and are responsible for it's effects.

Property damage issue.

That does not invalidate rights.

I understand that a person owns the physical land on which his property is built, but I don't understand that there is a right not to have sound waves travel through airspace above the land you own. I'd appreciate a more thorough explanation.

On your second point - How is this simply a property damage issue? Is the river in front of your beachfront home your property? I think not. The actual beach, yes; the water in front of it, probably not. But I'm not asking the question because I have the answers. Again, I'd like a more thorough explanation from anyone who can give one.

On your third point - Of course it doesn't invalidate rights. But most people have NOT signed such a contract before moving in (unless perhaps in an apartment lease), so if your neighbor has not signed such a contract, are you devoid of any "right" to a quiet ambient noise level?

Some areas of law already address this where there is a contract but the contract doesn't specify a right to be free from noise. In leases, for instance, you have an implied "right of quiet enjoyment" of the premises. If you rent an apartment, and the landlord or another tenant starts pumping out the loud music at 3 AM you may have an enforceable legal right. Of course it is all contextual. If you rent an apartment next to a railroad track, you can't really complain that the train makes a lot of noise.

Vladimir Berkov--all of what you said makes sense--but what if Metallica moves in next to you in a suburban neighborhood and starts playing loud music all the time in the back yard? This may seem like quite a hypothetical, but I'm trying to provide a good explanation to the problem to a pretty stubborn non-Objectivist, so I think it's an important hypothetical to consider, and I figure there's probably a rational solution, since I've not yet found a "problem" that doesn't have one.

[DavidOdden]

So if I live next to you, do I have the right to blast Nine Inch Nails music that's loud enough to keep you awake at night? Is there anything you can do about this other than building a wall or moving away?

I don't see how you can do that without some form of trespass on my property. You can shake your air molecules as much as you want, but you have to leave my air alone. I don't have any need for a notion of sacred communal property to be used and yet not used, what I need is the concept of my property, which you cannot invade directly or indirectly.

[BrassDragon]

I don't see how you can do that without some form of trespass on my property. You can shake your air molecules as much as you want, but you have to leave my air alone. I don't have any need for a notion of sacred communal property to be used and yet not used, what I need is the concept of my property, which you cannot invade directly or indirectly.

It makes sense to me that one would "own" the air molecules above his or her property. It helps to bring up the air molecules, because that provides something concrete to go on--i.e. the air above your property isn't just "empty space," which I suppose is the error I was making. I wish there was a solution that didn't require understanding a scientific concept (air molecules) that isn't just plain evident, but heck, it works. Thanks for your insight, DavidOdden.

So under this reasoning, it seems to make sense that within reason, a person would "own" the water space reasonably in front of his riverside property. For a person upstream to pollute would constitute trespass in the same way allowing loud noise to enter a neighbor's yard would - you're putting a product of your own creation into their territory, which is a violation of their rights. It would also make sense that it's immoral to pollute the air heavily, because that pollution will travel over other peoples' airspace. Am I making sense here?

Edited September 22, 2006 by BrassDragon

[LaVache]

So under this reasoning, it seems to make sense that within reason, a person would "own" the water space reasonably in front of his riverside property. For a person upstream to pollute would constitute trespass in the same way allowing loud noise to enter a neighbor's yard would - you're putting a product of your own creation into their territory, which is a violation of their rights. It would also make sense that it's immoral to pollute the air heavily, because that pollution will travel over other peoples' airspace. Am I making sense here?

That and you could possibly poison/kill your neighbors/their animals depending on what kind of pollution we are talking about here.

[mweiss]

I've been discussing Objectivism with a friend via e-mail, and I've been able to give convincing and well thought-out arguments for most of his objections.

But the topic of "noise pollution" has evaded me, and I admit, I need some help.

Does a person have the right to play loud music on his or her property if it disturbs the neighbors? If not, how can laws be created to reflect this (i.e. would there just have to be an arbitrary number of decibels that cannot be exceeded, or is there an objective way to determine how much noise is too much)?

My initial thought was that a person has the right to make as much noise as he likes on his property, and if it disturbs the neighbors, they can move, build a wall, etc.

But what about light pollution? What about polluting a public resource, like a river, where people like to swim?

It seems to come down to a problem of "property" that seems to be "public" by nature (i.e. the air, water, etc.)

My friends says he has a right to enjoy his property without a neighbor disturbing him by blasting loud music constantly, and that seems to make intuitive sense to me, so I'm at an impasse.

A very interesting question, one which affects me personally, as I am an extremist when it comes to the enjoyment of loud and particularly low frequencies in music and am probably one of the few people in the US who, as a resident, possess a sound system suited for a large outdoor football stadium or sports arena, rather than a home.

That said, I have mixed ideas about this. My objective side says that Objectivism allows you do do what you please AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE and when it crosses the line of involving the expense of others, you must either gain the voluntary consent of the affected party(ies) or curtail your activities so that they no longer infringe upon your neighbors.

However, my irrational side realizes that I have an incurrable addiction to bass and loud music in general, and as a Bass Pig, I cannot control myself and seek to remain sane for long. That is why I moved up here to the sticks 40 years ago. Alone in the woods, I could enjoy my music and disturb no one.

The rampant development over the past 20 years has brought some neighborhoods within 2 miles of me now, well within the sphere of "bass leakage". And a few single homes have been built within 1/2 mile of me in the past 12 years.

So I looked at the case of Elsessor vs. WGHF broadcasting, in which, an established radio station was being sued by a recently-moved-in neighbor, who complained of severe interference to his radio and television by the high powered FM station nearby. The courts ruled that WGHF was protected by the grandfather clause, being a preexisting producer of interference and an existing nuisance that was accepted by the community at-large.

So I suspect that if you're an existing music appreciator with a penchant for the loud levels and you were there before anyone else, you tend to have some leverage both legally and morally. After all, the new neighbors buy into an existing situation. If they don't like the noise, they can move. Or then can make noise themselves.

If you have moved into an existing neighborhood, then better to not upset the apple cart.

[BrassDragon]

If you have moved into an existing neighborhood, then better to not upset the apple cart.

Well, I think the issue is the nature of property. From my reading (including some, but not all, of the Objectivist canon), I have two conceptions of property:

-Property you own by virtue of using it. I.e. someone who is homesteading in early America, where there are no established property lines, deeds, etc.

-Property you own through a deed. For example, a house you buy in a neighborhood that's already built.

The question is (assuming these two conceptions are valid), under which do the air molecules (or ambient silence) fall?

The radio station case would suggest the first - the radio station is using a natural property (the airwaves), so they weren't really available for the person who moved in to buy in the first place, and he never "owned" them by virute of using them.

On the other hand, when you hold property through the second means, doesn't it automatically make sense you'd own the natural properties of the direct area you own, besides just the physical land? Doesn't it make sense you'd be buying the airspace directly around the house you bought, and thus the "property" of ambient silence?

I think the only way to solve these competing "conceptions" is to reduce them to something more basic, i.e. pick one or the other. I think the first conception is definitely valid, but I feel the second one is only valid by virtue of the first one. So in other words, if you buy a house in a noise neighborhood, you don't buy the "air molecules" with it, they're already in use. If you buy a house in a quiet neighborhood, you "own" the ambient silence if you take advantage of it, i.e. like to sit in your yard and enjoy not being in a loud place.

This conception would suggest to me, however, that it's not valid to own large tracts of land that aren't being used. The paper company could own hundreds of acre of forest, because they're waiting for the trees to grow up so they could cut them down, but you couldn't just own a hundred acres of forest just to own them and have them, if you live in another state and don't put it to any use. Somebody else could legitimately come in and begin to use the land for something, and it's no longer yours.

All this seems to make sense to me, but I bet it's pretty controversial. Any ideas, anyone?

(We may want to start a new thread. If no all-powerful being comes and makes a new thread of this, and I need more input, I might end up starting a new one.)

[Ifat Glassman]

Does one have the right to spread biological weapon into the air in one's property? I'm sure you will have no problem answering no. While it is true that he is performing the action on his own property, it is still initiation of force against others, because the biological weapon spreads through air.

Well, so does sound. And constant, loud sound is objectively harmful to any man, so it is an initiation of force.

Same if someone is pouring poisonous chemicals into a river flowing through one's property.

Edit: grammar

Edited October 4, 2006 by ifatart

[mrocktor]

Does one have the right to spread biological weapon into the air in one's property?

Yes you do. You do not have a right to spread it outside your property though, and if you can't keep it from spreading - that is why you can't spread the biological agent in your land.

mrocktor

[Drew1776]

I was wondering if anyone had a set of objective criteria that could be used to determine when noise “pollution” is ok. In extreme examples it is easy to see if the sound someone is using infringes on my rights or not. If my neighbor sets up a band and they play very loudly that is a clear violation of my property rights. But what if the case is not so extreme? What if my neighbor plays music very softly on his property but just loud enough that I can hear it? Technically he did not gain permission from me to vibrate my air molecules. I’m sure there are many noises your neighbor can make throughout the day that would spill over into your property. I’m wondering where is the objective line? The same question could be asked of light “pollution” I don’t think anyone would say that I have a right to sue a car driver because he turned a corner and his lights happened to hit my house.

[Ifat Glassman]

I was wondering if anyone had a set of objective criteria that could be used to determine when noise “pollution” is ok.

How loud is loud?

But what if the case is not so extreme? What if my neighbor plays music very softly on his property but just loud enough that I can hear it?

If he plays it nonstop, not loud enough to damage your hearing but loud enough so you can't hear yourself speak, it is an initiation of force: because it prevents you from sleeping, it prevents you from communicating in your own home, or any other activity that requires listening to something (other than his music).

Imagine someone walking in front of you in the street holding a huge cardboard in front of your eyes wherever you go, so you can't see what's in front of you. Sure, he does not physically touch you at any time, but he is still using force against you by blocking out your vision, and (objectively) reducing your ability to deal with reality.

This is why I think that any music loud enough that it disables other people's ability to hear other things, should be illegal. It should be the liability of the person creating the noise to get the consent of others to disable their hearing sense for a while. Either they use headphones, build special rooms to play with their band, or reach some agreement with the neighbors.

If your neighbor is listening to music that is soft enough to allow you to hear someone else speak, then it should be legal, as long as it is not all day long all week, because then it prevents you from sleeping.

[mweiss]

Lots of interesting concepts here.

Some variables come into consideration and they are:

The time of day when the noise/music is played

The volume of the sound

The volume level below a certain frequency (bass)

The volume level above a certain frequency (midrange and other audible sound)

The perception of loudness of the sound

The repetitive or rhythmic aspect of the sound

Different frequencies carry various distances. The higher frequencies tend to travel the shortest distance due to absorbtion by air and objects like foliage.

Lower frequencies tend to travel further.

Lower frequencies are less directional.

Lower frequencies penetrate building materials more effectively. Buildings also have resonances, which can make selective frequencies sound louder in the building.

The Fletcher-Munson curves define how senstitive the human ear is to different frequencies across the spectrum. The ear is most sensitive (and therefore perceives as the loudest) middle frequencies around 2,000-3,000 cycles per second. A low frequency in the "bass" range has to be many times louder to be perceived at the same loudness.

Extremely low frequencies may not be easily identified as music. For instance, pipe organ, reproduced at high levels, from a mile away, might be perceived as an army helocopter coming over the horizon. These types of sounds may be the most accepted, as they are hard to identify.

Typical music with bass in the mid-bass range, ie., rock, reggae, jazz, is low enough in frequency to penetrate most wood frame buildings easily, while masonry will tend to attenuate it considerably.

The frequency ranges where vocal sounds lie are easy to attenuate by simply closing windows. It's the bass that offers the greatest potential for neighbor conflicts.

That said, here is what happens to carpeting when the lowest note (the 32' stop) on a pipe organ is played at a level high enough (way over 140 decibels, nearfield--this was measured from 30' away at 133 decibels):

Now, the philosophical implications of waging 'sonic violence' against one's own person raise some interesting questions of ethics.

We ask certain questions to weigh the value of these actions:

Does the pleasure derived outweigh the harm to one's body?

Everyone here probably knows that Ayn Rand was a smoker. She was made aware of the dangers of smoking at some point later in her life. She chose to continue, citing that the pleasure derived outweighed her perceived benefit.

I myself have an incurable addicton to bass. Virtually all of my life's savings was invested in that direction. I realize that there is a danger to my health, especially hearing. There are unknown possible health dangers relating to intense low frequency sounds that have yet to be discovered and studied. I may be the 'guinea pig' in that study. That said, I limit the duration of the very loud sounds, as duration is inversely proportional to sound pressure level, when it comes to hearing damage. We can withstand very loud sounds for short durations.

Some people say "why not use headphones?" The reason is bass is a whole-body experience. It's like limiting a sexual experience to kissing only with no other body contact than lips. I don't expect the majority of people to understand the actual experience, as only about 1% of the US population has ever experienced any modicum of bass (going to a disco doesn't qualify).

Tying back into the original points or property, some sort of standard of time and loudness with respect to spectrum needs to be established in order to determine if a violation occurs. Is it too loud when your neighbor can't enjoy a quiet afternoon on his outdoor deck? Or is it only too loud when the bass from a stereo down the road is vibrating everything in the neighbor's house?

I'm a beleiver in 'preexisting' conditions. If you move into a neighborhood with a known source of noise, you probably would not be reasonable to expect silence all the time.

I could be an ass and play loud music all night long, but in deference to the neighbors, I cut the really loud stuff at 9PM and cut it off entirely by 10PM. Really loud is anything over 140dB on my CEL 241/1 sound level meter. If I keep it under 100dB, it's pretty close to inaudible outdoors at the property line. Howver, the lower frequencies tend to carry farther. On June 30th, after installing some new experimental subwoofers, I measured 97dB in front of an unoccupied neighbor's house, 2/10 mile up the road when the low note of a bass part was played (29 cps). That little experiment alarmed me, considering that the sound was penetrating concrete walls up to 3' thick in some spot and a lot of earth that's up against those walls. I decided to cut down the levels and use extreme care when music contains very low bass notes like that. For instance, the 50-100 cps bass notes of Reggae music don't carry that far, so I can get away with playing this louder, than say, certain music using an extended range bass guitar or synthesizers that get down much lower than normal music does.

It's a complex issue with a lot of variables. I'm afraid that if government gets into the act, it will 'simplify' the rules and not consider the nuances of different types of sound and instead just take an arbitrary reading.

[BrassDragon]

I don't see how you can do that without some form of trespass on my property. You can shake your air molecules as much as you want, but you have to leave my air alone. I don't have any need for a notion of sacred communal property to be used and yet not used, what I need is the concept of my property, which you cannot invade directly or indirectly.

Air in the atmosphere isn’t owned. To own air, you must compress it into a metal cylinder, so that’s the end of his breathing problems. You'll have to explain how this universally hated man came into existence, who no man, woman or mother is willing to allow to stand on his land at any price.

I don't think these two comments jive with each other very well. First you say "you have to leave my air alone," and then "Air in that atmosphere isn't owned."

I recognize "ownership" as coming from using something at the moment, so if you can "use" the air in your yard in that you are enjoying ambient silence, you can "own" it, but if you can't use air that is "in the atmosphere," you can't "own" that. I think this explains the discrepancy (let me know if it doesn't). Just wanted to mention the discrepancy though, since I find atmospheric property rights to be an interesting topic.

[DavidOdden]

I don't think these two comments jive with each other very well.

What's the deal, got nothing better to do than research?? Well, fine, be that way. BTW I agree that the problem of non-solid pollution under a rational system of law and rights is a tough one. Then I hope you'll forgive a few imprecisions of expression motivated by the urge to make different emphases. When I say "you have to leave my air alone", I mean that I own the space above my property up to some point (let's not open that can of forms and stipulate that it's 1,000 feet). That means that you cannot rightfully invade my space with your poison (because I have the right to live and work in my space and you poisoning me by putting poison in the space that I own, and by right live and work in, is assault against me, plain and simple). I'm not talking about me owning particular molecules, just the space that is mine. More accurately, I should have said "leave my atmospheric space, which is filled with air, alone". That's distinct from saying that I own the actual particles that comprise the air that happens to be in my space. Unless, of course, I shove it in a can and sell it.

I recognize "ownership" as coming from using something at the moment,

I think you should tighten this up, because if I understand what you're saying, you're saying that real estate investment is risky because if you buy land, unless you're actually living on it or building a factory on it, somebody else can come along and rightfully say "Oh, look, unowned land! I hereby claim thee!"

[Seeker]

The problem I see with attempting to arrive at an objectively correct answer in terms of property rights is that the property right in question, like all property rights, is subject to bargaining. Whether one has a right to demand quiet from the neighbors (and how much quiet, at what times, etc.) begs the question of whether one bargained that property right away in choosing to live in a particular place. I tend to disfavor the discovery of unwritten rights when the existence of written contracts enables such rights to be made perfectly clear - if you don't specify "not more than x decibels after 9 PM" (or at least "use and quiet enjoyment") in a written agreement, that's tough, but it doesn't mean that your asserted property right should be discovered out of thin air.

In terms of objective harm, I think the question is easier. The neighbor may not realize that his music is harmful, but once that harm has been objectively demonstrated - regardless of property boundaries - he must stop playing his music. At issue is one person's right to be free from the initiation of force by others.

I suppose that objective harm might not always be easy to prove, in which case an interesting question of retaliation arises. If the neighbor could get away with playing his Nine Inch Nails at full volume, then you could get away with playing your Beethoven at full volume too. A sensible written agreement between the parties, specifying particular terms and conditions for playing music, would be the logical result.

[Inspector]

mweiss,

You should consider doing the following:

1) Buy up neighboring lots ASAP before developments raise the prices.

2) Document your activities so that you can show an existing condition.

3) If you can't afford to buy any neighboring property, wait until development comes and your land value goes up, then sell and move further out into the sticks. And this time, buy enough land so that you'll be able to live the way you like.

[mweiss]

mweiss,

You should consider doing the following:

1) Buy up neighboring lots ASAP before developments raise the prices.

2) Document your activities so that you can show an existing condition.

3) If you can't afford to buy any neighboring property, wait until development comes and your land value goes up, then sell and move further out into the sticks. And this time, buy enough land so that you'll be able to live the way you like.

I'm surprised you didn't put in a fourth option: Get psychiatric help. :-)

In all seriousness though, it's a relatively minor issue and if the neighborhood to the north of me is complaining, well I have never been told so.

I'd love to buy up all the lots surrounding me, but since they are undevelopable wetlands, I don't have to worry about development there. Anyway, I can barly afford the taxes on my existing lot, much less adding to that burden with more lots, assuming they were given to me.

I have absolutely no intention of moving. I've settled here in 1966 with the intent of this being my final home before they cart me off to the cemetary. Although, I had looked into selling, just as a plan B in case I can't catch up with the taxes here. Turned out that plan is riddled with costly problems and opens "pandora's box".

Sometimes the best solution is to just keep doing what one is doing.

[BrassDragon]

What's the deal, got nothing better to do than research?? Well, fine, be that way.

Yeah I've been waiting for months to call you out on something. Just kidding, of course. I forgive your imprecisions, if they even are imprecisions - what you were saying makes sense in context. Good way to revive this thread through, since I'm not totally firm on some aspects of the topic, specifically:

I think you should tighten this up, because if I understand what you're saying, you're saying that real estate investment is risky because if you buy land, unless you're actually living on it or building a factory on it, somebody else can come along and rightfully say "Oh, look, unowned land! I hereby claim thee!"

That's exactly what I'm saying. In my understanding, rights are determined by rational men, based on the prerequisites for them to live their lives (qua men, of course). Obviously, that includes property rights to anything you produce (and do not abandon) and anything you're using, so long as nobody else was using it first. I don't see any reason for someone to be able to have property rights to completely undeveloped land, which could be "claimed" and then traded by deed. Same thing with air - it's "yours" if you're using it for something, insomuch as nobody can legitimately prevent you from using it that way.

The problem I see with attempting to arrive at an objectively correct answer in terms of property rights is that the property right in question, like all property rights, is subject to bargaining. Whether one has a right to demand quiet from the neighbors (and how much quiet, at what times, etc.) begs the question of whether one bargained that property right away in choosing to live in a particular place. I tend to disfavor the discovery of unwritten rights when the existence of written contracts enables such rights to be made perfectly clear - if you don't specify "not more than x decibels after 9 PM" (or at least "use and quiet enjoyment") in a written agreement, that's tough, but it doesn't mean that your asserted property right should be discovered out of thin air.

I don't think property rights are very subject to bargaining, in general. Usually when you buy landed property, it is surrounded by other landed property that has already been purchased, and there is no opportunity to negotiate what constitutes "noise pollution." The only way around this is to claim or buy a huge swath of land, and then dictate terms to anyone who you re-sold the land to - that's not the way things usually work. I'm not in favor of the discovery of unwritten rights, but if it can be established that one owns the air one is using in some sense (including in the sense of enjoying the ambient near-silence), based on the fundamental concept of property rights, then the problem is solved - and I think that I've neatly summarized the objectively correct solution above.

[Seeker]

What about prospective usage? Why shouldn't I be able to buy land that I might expect to develop at some point in the future, or trade that right to others? Allowing that actual usage implies a property right, how is the right to develop land to be handled?

Edited December 18, 2006 by Seeker

[DavidOdden]

In my understanding, rights are determined by rational men, based on the prerequisites for them to live their lives (qua men, of course). Obviously, that includes property rights to anything you produce (and do not abandon) and anything you're using, so long as nobody else was using it first. I don't see any reason for someone to be able to have property rights to completely undeveloped land, which could be "claimed" and then traded by deed.

And, of course, each man must determine what is necessary for his survival, in the context of his knowledge (especially of himself). An objective system of law then allows men to differ in certain ways. For instance, I might value a particular piece of land for personal recreation, and want it to be as untouched as possible for that purpose. An objective government would allow this, so that I could buy that land and then use it as I want. I might only use it once every couple of years, or less often. Another guy might look at the land and say "Wow, 10 million board feet of lumber and a million tons of coal under the surface, to boot!" and plan to dig it up. So it just depends on who gets there first or offers the highest price to the seller. In fact, I might recognize the economic potential of the land, and while I'm not able to harvest the resources of the land myself, I know who might be willing to pay me $10 million for the deed to the land (at which point, I'm set for life). The law must recognize both as valid purposes. So in fact, the law should not inquire into one's purpose in owning land or any other thing. Let me propose a really scary and yet not too implausible scenario: ownership of anything is contingent on having proven a valid use for the property, validity to be judged by a central committee. If you don't drive that car for a couple of years, anyone can come along and claim it since obviously it isn't necessary to your survival. You just do not want to go there ('cuz you'll have to walk, 'cuz somebody is gonna claim your car as unowned and abandoned property, soon as you park it).

[Tabitha]

I'm surprised the concept of the right to reason hasn't been brought up yet. I live above someone who blasts her TV to the point that I can hear the actual words being spoken. This interferes with my (and others') ability to read, study, think and produce -- to use my mind. While the arguments about property rights and ownership of sound molecules are worthwhile and not wasted, the bigger issue is a) People's desires to atrophy their brains -- their minds -- through these destructive practices* and b ) the fact that such noise is preventing others from using their minds, to their fullest capacities, on their own properties.

*By "destrictive practices," I refer not to playing music, watching TV, hosting guests, and other noisy activities, but to what can (rightfully) be inferred about people who do these things on a continual basis -- to the point of having irrational (unproductive) lives.

Edited December 21, 2006 by Tabitha