Creating explosive drugs in a populated area

[DavidOdden]

On another note - sorry for moving slightly out of context - but why should people be free to produce and sell meth [edit]? Isn't there a point after which a drug is so damaging to the rational capacity, and so addicting, that its use renders a person legal incapable of acting as a rational adult?

It is the right and proper choice of each individual to act as a rational adult, if he choses. Rights are for man, and each man must discover and decide whether and how they will exist. The function of government is to protect the individual from initiation of force by others; nothing more, and nothing less.

[New Buddha]

Nobody believes that that is the reason why codes etc are imposed. And, it is a fact that these codes do infringe on the rights of property owners.

Your argument is entirely off-base, because it is the right of a property owner to decide what level of risk he will accept. I will repeat myself one last time: risk is not the same as a threat.Nonsense. Courts have been adjudicating damage lawsuits for millenia without any such codes. Such codes are a recent invention. Preventative law is entirely unnecessary.

I hate to attempt to "put words in your mouth", but I do want to understand your postion correctly. I am willing to accept that my postion on "preventative law" could be wrong, so I am open to learning why. If you could elaborate in your response or provide links to a more elaborated postion on this it would be appreciated. I'm sure that I'm not the first to raise such a question.

Here is an example of what I understand you to be saying:

Under Objectivism, there is nothing that adjacent property owners or the government can do to prevent a property owner from building a jet fuel refining and storage facility in the middle of a downtown, high-rise district. Is this a true statement?

[DavidOdden]

Under Objectivism, there is nothing that adjacent property owners or the government can do to prevent a property owner from building a jet fuel refining and storage facility in the middle of a downtown, high-rise district.

I kind of don't want to even acknowledge your question, since it's a blatant appeal to irrationality and emotionalism. Jet fuel is for all intents and purposes kerosene, and is nowhere near as volatile as gasoline. There is no such thing as a "jet fuel refining" facility -- jet fuel is one of a number of petroleum distillates. Very many "downtown, high-rise districts" are well-populated by storage facilities for an even more volatile substance, gasoline; e.g. NYC, 7th ave between 12th and 13th st.

Objectivism isn't about jet fuel or high rises, it is a philosophy. You show me that kerosene is a real threat to human existence; otherwise, the answer is that Objectivism obviously does not prevent man from taking risks.

[A is A]

I hate to attempt to "put words in your mouth", but I do want to understand your postion correctly. I am willing to accept that my postion on "preventative law" could be wrong, so I am open to learning why. If you could elaborate in your response or provide links to a more elaborated postion on this it would be appreciated. I'm sure that I'm not the first to raise such a question.

What do you see as the purpose of law? Objectivism holds that all law is aimed at protecting individual rights and nothing else. I'd suggest reading Rand's essays "Man's Rights" and "The Nature of Government."

Here is an example of what I understand you to be saying:

Under Objectivism, there is nothing that adjacent property owners or the government can do to prevent a property owner from building a jet fuel refining and storage facility in the middle of a downtown, high-rise district. Is this a true statement?

Silly us. We always wondered what those ominous looking tanks in the distance were. Now that we know they're Liquid Natural Gas, we'd definitely think twice about moving within fireball incineration distance. Sure, the odds are minimal, and residents have lived with the threat for generations, but everybody should at least be aware of what's stored in the tanks.

It's always good to know what's out there to worry about when we feel like worrying about something we can't control.

Crispy Critters

In other words, move or don't move there.

[Summer]

It is the right and proper choice of each individual to act as a rational adult, if he choses. Rights are for man, and each man must discover and decide whether and how they will exist. The function of government is to protect the individual from initiation of force by others; nothing more, and nothing less.

I agree with that. And yes, my quote earlier on was verbatim

"The definite of reasonable/unreasonable is intuitive and depends on the social norms of the community. There is no scientific/mathematical algorithm for it".

I think this is where I am having the problem. I want it in mathematical algorithm.

[softwareNerd]

I was reading my subdivision's "Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions" document... which is viewed as being appended to every title deed here (i.e. basically a private contract). One section was relevant to this thread, so I'm posting it as an example of how this is dealt with today:

Nothing shall be done or kept in <..our subdivision..> that will increase the rate of insurance of any <subdivision> property without the approval of the Board of Directors, nor shall anything be done in <..our subdivison..< that will result in the cancellation of insurance on any property in <the subdivision>, or which would be in violation of the law.

Edited January 25, 2010 by softwareNerd

[steckSalathe]

I think this is where I am having the problem. I want it in mathematical algorithm.

People get college degrees to asses risk for insurance companies (like the ones who would raise prices on Softwarenerd's subdivision). They deal with pretty complicated math to figure out the different levels of risk. And where to draw the line.

[Zip]

There has been a lot of talk in this thread about what Cities (or other communities) do and do not allow. Where do they get this right?

In a LFC society the City we know today would not exist for all intents and purposes. There would be no city paid garbage collection, no city owned roads, no need for the bloated bureaucracies we see today deciding if they the city is going to steal your tax money to support the Blind Lesbian Chainsaw Juggling Act that is "a part of our cities heritage" or other similar nonsense.

Today a City "owns" all the public property within it's boundaries. In a LFC society there is no such thing as public property so where all of a sudden does a City (or any other similar entity) draw its authority to tell anyone what they can or can not do on their private property?

I agree that there would definitely be scope to employ Tort Law to resolve issues such as Ryan's Meth Lab (although I'm of the mind that his exploding "Math Lab" is more dangerous ) but the "City" as we see the term today would have little to do other than running the local police station.

How would a city even come into existence? I mean literally everyone in the affected area would have to vote to be a part of a "city" for a city to have any authority of any kind over anything other than the police. I could see metropolitan areas surrounded by a bunch of HOA's (which by virtue of all the persons in them agreeing to the contract could enforce their "by-laws") but an overarching "city"? I'm not so sure.

[softwareNerd]

Cities are merely smaller geographical governments. It makes sense to divide government that way, just as it does to divide most large organizations.

If I had to guess, the biggest legal factor controlling the usage being discussed in this thread would be sub-division/development agreements. These have been in place for decades, because a person buying a house in a sub-division wants to have certain assurances. So, every property in a particular development is sold with a bunch of conditions attached. It is reasonable to assume that some such contracts would be far more strict than any rules a city would come up with, and others would be far more relaxed. If I know my neighbors, most of them would pay a small premium if they knew a development's title came with tight usage restrictions.

[Zip]

Cities are merely smaller geographical governments. It makes sense to divide government that way, just as it does to divide most large organizations.

If I had to guess, the biggest legal factor controlling the usage being discussed in this thread would be sub-division/development agreements. These have been in place for decades, because a person buying a house in a sub-division wants to have certain assurances. So, every property in a particular development is sold with a bunch of conditions attached. It is reasonable to assume that some such contracts would be far more strict than any rules a city would come up with, and others would be far more relaxed. If I know my neighbors, most of them would pay a small premium if they knew a development's title came with tight usage restrictions.

I agree, and starting from a zero point (i.e. no city) you would be able to do that. However starting from what we have now how would you go about forming a city with "by-laws" when you would have to achieve the agreement of every individual property owner.

Aside from police services (which are a legitimate function of government) what else would you expect a city to have control over?

[Summer]

"Today a City "owns" all the public property within it's boundaries. In a LFC society there is no such thing as public property so where all of a sudden does a City (or any other similar entity) draw its authority to tell anyone what they can or can not do on their private property?"

This is actually what I intended to get at: If you own the property you live on but others own property around you and your meth lab is at a risk of destroying their land (both are not managed by the community but by individuals).

When I mentioned a "city" I just meant a heavily populated area. Sorry for the confusion.

Edited February 7, 2010 by Summer

[TheDudeWow]

I was initially going to say that it should be up to the people in the (for lack of a better term) blast radius, but the more I think about it, the more I think that that's wrong. I think that the lab operator should definitely inform the affected of his or her activities, but I don't think that they should have absolute control over their activities.

Actually, this seems like a job for government. It really comes down to whose rights take precedence. Is it a qualified, well equipped scientist or a meth head with a chemistry set? I think that the former shouldn't be too large a risk and the latter akin to a child playing with a matches in a fireworks factory. And if the neighbors are informed, then they can leave if they value their life more than their home. No one is forcing them to live next to the potential bomb.

EDIT: Wall of Text

Edited July 13, 2010 by TheDudeWow

[TuringAI]

An action should only be illegal if, by its nature, it constitutes a threat in reality. The fact that an act is somewhat dangerous does not mean that performing the act should be a crime, if the danger can be mitigated. For the most part, dangerous acts ought to be handled under the law in terms of post hoc civil remedies.

This seems to contradict Ayn Rand's views on Drunk Driving. Should we merely have the capacity to sue drunk drivers, or those who are not creating safe methamphetamine labs, or should they be illegal altogether?

[DavidOdden]

This seems to contradict Ayn Rand's views on Drunk Driving.

I see; and could you quote that view for me?