Rational philosophy on Noise pollution

[airborne]

Your neighbor likes playing loud death metal music which prevents you from sleeping. He does this every night. The sound-waves are entering your private property. Is he violating your private property?

I would think not because I understand a violation of private property to be force against you or him physically entering your property. Additionally, it would be impossible to define the limit in an objective manner. What is too loud? What music is appropriate? at what frequency?

Would Rationality be on my side here? If so - for the reasons I stated? or otherwise? If not, why?

Edit:

Thinking about it more, if this is allowed then wouldn't he also be allowed to create a fume exhaust from his mini home factory(for the sake of understanding what the limit is lets just say that he built one in his house) and aim it at your house? Because technically he is not entering your property. Sound and Fumes are both physical particles. If you say that fumes could possibly be dangerous for someone, cant one also say that the death metal music could be psychologically dangerous?

Edited October 15, 2007 by airborne

[Robert J. Kolker]

Your neighbor likes playing loud death metal music which prevents you from sleeping. He does this every night. The sound-waves are entering your private property. Is he violating your private property?

The misdemeanor is disturbing the peace. People have a right to be able to get a good night of sleep. Making excessive noise deprives them of this right. If you want to quibble about what excessive means in decibels go right ahead. Some sort of measurable or objective standards can be agreed upon. If a neighbor likes his music he can either play it at a low volume or set up a soundproof room in his house where he can play as loud as he wishes, since he is the only one to hear the noise.

In general scaring the horses and disturbing the peace are not permitted activities.

The best guide for this sort thing is Common Law. The English worked out a dandy set of laws and rules by purely empirical means. They did not need a fancy ethical theory to do it.

Bob Kolker

[airborne]

People have a right to be able to get a good night of sleep

So if someone has troubles falling asleep due to psychological problems, do we have to pay for his sleep medicine?

I sort of get where your going just something about it I'm not getting. All I know of rights is that it is right to life and therefore no physical coercion. Everything else is not a right.

And I'm not trying to be all antsy smartass, which I think is how that came across. Just trying to understand this completely %100.

Edited October 15, 2007 by airborne

[Robert J. Kolker]

So if someone has troubles falling asleep due to psychological problems, do we have to pay for his sleep medicine?

I should have stated the matter more exactly. People have the right to sufficient peace and quiet to get a good sleep, if they are able to fall asleep at all. If they have insomnia then noisy or quiet, they will have trouble sleeping. That is their problem. People have a right not to be unreasonably disturbed by noise. See Common Law on Breach of the Peace for further details.

A does not have the right to keep B awake by making a lot of unnecessary noise. There are laws on the books dealing with this kind of misdemeanor. If A makes too much noise and keeps B awake thereby, then B can make it A's problem by summoning the law.

Bob Kolker

[Robert J. Kolker]

Your neighbor likes playing loud death metal music which prevents you from sleeping. He does this every night. The sound-waves are entering your private property. Is he violating your private property?

Here is a very typical disturbing the peace ordinance that flows from traditional Common Law. It was passed in Hubbard Ohio, but it is virtually identical to similar laws all over the country.

( a ) No person shall disturb the peace and quiet of the City to the annoyance of citizens by any unnecessary outcry in the day or night season, upon the streets, alleys or public grounds in the City, or upon any private premises, or permit to be made any loud, unnecessary outcry or noise in conducting any kind of business in the streets, alleys, public or private grounds or premises.

( B ) Whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor.

( Ord. 22-93. Passed 4-5-93. )

It is quite reasonable as it does not prevent people from going about their ordinary business in a reasonable and ordinary way.

For those who are hypersensitive to normal sound levels, they will have to create a sound proof area in their house to get a night's sleep. That is the way it goes.

Bob Kolker

Edited October 15, 2007 by Robert J. Kolker

[RationalBiker]

People have the right to sufficient peace and quiet to get a good sleep, if they are able to fall asleep at all. If they have insomnia then noisy or quiet, they will have trouble sleeping.

Not quite there yet...

Do bums who live on the street and sleep in doorways have a right to sufficient peace and quiet? Should it be illegal for cars and trucks to drive by them because of the noise they make and how it might disturb their peaceful slumber?

I think you need to start looking in the direction of property rights as opposed to sleep rights.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Not quite there yet...

Do bums who live on the street and sleep in doorways have a right to sufficient peace and quiet? Should it be illegal for cars and trucks to drive by them because of the noise they make and how it might disturb their peaceful slumber?

I think you need to start looking in the direction of property rights as opposed to sleep rights.

As long as the cars and trucks have exhausts that work properly there should be no problem. And the Peace and Quiet Ordinances are for decent folks who have their own ( or rented ) beds to sleep on. Most towns have ordinances prohibiting bums from sleeping on park benches or crapped out on the grass in public places. There are always ways of setting reasonable bounds to noise that normal reasonable folk can live with. And it is not a property right issue either. It is against the law to make sounds exceeding 140 Db except by special permit, as this will cause permanent damage to the inner ear. This has nothing to do with sound waves entering private property and everything to do with prohibiting reckless endangerment ( another Common Law notion). No one has the right to damage another person's body, even if there was no malicious intent to do so. That is why we have laws that mandate mufflers on auto, truck and motorcycle exhaust systems.

Bob Kolker

Edited October 15, 2007 by Robert J. Kolker

[intellectualammo]

Your neighbor likes playing loud death metal music which prevents you from sleeping. He does this every night.

Try talking to him about the loud death metal music to get him to understand its effect that it has on you? ...or contact authorities? I know that I have repeatedly contacted my authorities about issues that I have had (not music related though) and they either came out, or gave me advice on what to do or not to do in certain situations.

Edited October 15, 2007 by intellectualammo

[airborne]

btw this is not a real problem!!! I'm just studying Objectivism and trying to get a better grasp of concepts! Although some of these situations may be less likely, they are still very possible. Lets just assume negotiation does not work.

It is against the law to make sounds exceeding 140 Db except by special permit, as this will cause permanent damage to the inner ear.

Since this is the objectively defined limit, as to not cause physical injury, my neighbour is therefore allowed to play music at 139Db exactly?

( a ) No person shall disturb the peace and quiet of the City to the annoyance of citizens by any unnecessary outcry in the day or night season, upon the streets, alleys or public grounds in the City, or upon any private premises, or permit to be made any loud, unnecessary outcry or noise in conducting any kind of business in the streets, alleys, public or private grounds or premises.

( B ) Whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor.

( Ord. 22-93. Passed 4-5-93. )

What is considered an unnecessary outcry? by what standard?

Is disturbing the peace noises over 140Db? or is it a noise level set by measuring the standard Db of 1000 sample people's voices?

Is a women reuniting with an old friend from school, screaming and dancing in delight, disturbing the peace and quite of the city?

People have the right to sufficient peace and quiet to get a good sleep

Yes, they do. On their own property. So I cant go claiming a right to peace and quite when I go over to a friends house. I can either leave or stay and suffer the noise.

A does not have the right to keep B awake by making a lot of unnecessary noise. There are laws on the books dealing with this kind of misdemeanor. If A makes too much noise and keeps B awake thereby, then B can make it A's problem by summoning the law.

ok, makes sense again... I'm starting to get it here. A does not have the right to keep B awake if B is on his own property. Now....

A can only playing music up to 140Db. Since it is hard to judge by some sort of objective standard what exactly is disruptive... apart from the point where you cause bodily harm to your neighbor.

So the solutions would be:

Negotiation, which would work in most cases

if not then you could build sound proofing for your house

or you could move?

Edited October 15, 2007 by airborne

[intellectualammo]

Yes, they do. On their own property. So I cant go claiming a right to peace and quite when I go over to a friends house. I can either leave or stay and suffer the noise.

Yes. I remember in the dormatory the rule was: no loud music after 10p.

So the solutions would be:

Negotiation, which would work in most cases

if not then you could build sound proofing for your house

or you could move?

Negotiation doesn't work, I go to authorities.

[RationalBiker]

And it is not a property right issue either.

On the contrary, I disagree. Cars with adequate mufflers are still loud enough to violate the right you are alleging a bum has to sleep peaceable (in someone else's doorway.) Off course since he has a right to sleep (according to you), I guess the private property owner has no right to tell the bum to leave his entrance way.

[Bold Standard]

Sound and Fumes are both physical particles.

Sound isn't actually "particles," but the vibration of particles already present.

[DavidOdden]

The sound-waves are entering your private property. Is he violating your private property?

Yes. Game over.

The approximate levels are 60 db, or 50 db after 10:00 pm. It doesn't matter if it's death metal or Wagner. When you're up to 140 dB, that's felonious assault. However, you have the right to play whatever in your house if you can keep the sound on your property.

[eficazpensador]

This has nothing to do with sound waves entering private property and everything to do with prohibiting reckless endangerment ( another Common Law notion). No one has the right to damage another person's body, even if there was no malicious intent to do so. That is why we have laws that mandate mufflers on auto, truck and motorcycle exhaust systems.

I don't think that loud music qualifies as reckless endangerment, or that it damages another persons body. It seems to me that there shouldn't be any noise pollution laws. Without zoning and what-not, private subdivisions would have developed where it would be perfectly legal and moral to kick out somebody who is disturbing the peace and preventing people within the subdivision from sleeping.

Yes. Game over.

So if sound waves entering your property are subject to property rights, are light waves also? Does that mean that the light reflecting off of the hideous pastel colored house next door is in violation of your property rights, if it prevents you from getting a full nights sleep?

Edited October 16, 2007 by eficazpensador

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Basically, one has the right not to be disturbed by one's neighbors insofar as noise or bright lights or interfering radio waves, barking dogs, etc. are concerned. It is a right to property issue, in that you own (or rent) your domicile and therefore have the right not to be messed with on your own property by, say, hecklers or nuisances created by others. Whether you are at home watching your TV in the middle of the afternoon or trying to sleep, it doesn't matter: You have a right to watch TV or listen to your music or read or whatever without somebody forcibly interfering with your enjoyment of life. And like all rights, it goes both ways, you don't have the right to forcibly interfere with their enjoyments, either; which means you keep it to yourself and he keeps it to himself.

A little while ago, someone had a very powerful citizen's band radio that when used would really fuzz up my TV or be broadcasted across my radio. He doesn't have a right to do that, since I am paying for those services and /or the TV / Radio broadcaster owns those frequencies which he is trampling upon.

If such interferences continue repeatedly, I think it becomes criminal harassment, if you have asked them to stop but they refuse to do so. It is, at a minimum, disturbing the peace; and the police will come out and investigate and ask them to stop doing that.

You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness --but you do not have the right to disturb mine.

[Qwertz]

We had a few threads on nuisance generally. I don't recall any of them coming to any definitive conclusions.

My view is that criminal charges in this arena should require a willful act against a particular person or group of discrete, identifiable persons.

The question of tort liability is far more complicated and, I think, more interesting. Because the scope of nuisance as a tort can be (and traditionally has been) used to define the scope of State's police power. Police power includes power to prevent tortious harms before they happen, and scope of property torts like nuisance can give (and has given) rise to absolutely unacceptable interference by local governments with private property. Zoning is justified under police power to prevent nuisances.

[Qwertz grumbles something incomprehensible about pigs in parlors.]

-Q

[tps_fan]

Oh, does this subject ever hit a sore spot with me!!!

Your neighbor likes playing loud death metal music which prevents you from sleeping. He does this every night. The sound-waves are entering your private property. Is he violating your private property?

Unquestionably YES, it's a property violation!

I would think not because I understand a violation of private property to be force against you or him physically entering your property. Additionally, it would be impossible to define the limit in an objective manner. What is too loud? What music is appropriate? at what frequency?

Would Rationality be on my side here? If so - for the reasons I stated? or otherwise? If not, why?

Delusion is "on the side" of such a person who would be willing to perform what is known as trespassing while not acknowledging it (and its consequences.) That's hardly a rational act!

Some of the people who blast music at maximal volumes are true Nihilists since they want to vent and spread their apparent hatred. I can't think of a single case where any of these type of force initiators are not Narcissists as well. I have to say that I hate these people with a passion for many different but related reasons.... Based on my own observations, there certainly seems to be many more of these people making their respective presence known these days.

Sound can certainly be measured in dB SPL. Even timbre can be specifically analyzed. The difficulty for legislators, law enforcement, and victims is in trying to come up with appropriate solutions which are legally consistent and feasible. While not being a legal expert myself, in my opinion, I would figure that (ideally) the process of enforcement would first involve identifying and warning the trespasser. If he continues as before, then he should be fined and/or he should be separated from related property. If he still continues as before, then he should be punished more severely. Whether that involves removing a stereo or kicking him off a property or some other action altogether depends on the moral and legal contexts.

There's really no rational excuse for this type of crime since someone who has and uses music producing equipment can acquire and use headphones and/or soundproofing. Plus, music producers and listeners regularly rent property for the express purpose of sound production ...if they are at least minimally rational. If someone has the means of producing sound, then they are morally obligated to provide the means for reducing that sound if it persistently disturbs other people.

[tps_fan]

I don't think that loud music qualifies as reckless endangerment, or that it damages another persons body.

Try telling that to Pete Townshend!

(I can't vouch for the accuracy of this website I just cited; though at first glance, the content looks plausible.)

[DavidOdden]

So if sound waves entering your property are subject to property rights, are light waves also?

Yeah, beaming a 100,000 candlepower spotlight into the neighbor's window is also trespass. BTW, pastel houses don't glow in the dark.