How would this be handled in an Objectivist Society?

[Peter Taylor]

Grames wrote:

It remains to be established that a view constitutes a use that can be protected by property law. If some views are used and some are not then only some views will be protected. A "view of the sun" which is blocked by a new skyscraper can kill trees or prevent gardens from growing, and growing things on your land is definitely a use. In general, being able to see something is not the same as using it.

Objectivism provides a rational basis for a better legal code, but it is not a legal code itself. Clarification of these kinds of issues is good but not an omission of the philosophy.

Excellent post, Grames. Your example of the skyscraper blocking the sun is exactly the reason property owners DEMAND zoning. Few want excessive zoning regulations or eminent domain. I only have a vague recollection of “view” constituting a property right but there may have been a case in Colorado, and several in resorts like Ocean City, Maryland. It will usually be "the rich" who utilize these realty laws that go back hundreds of years.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Peter Taylor]

Trebor, I am not sure of where you live. I will speak to you as I would speak to an American. Objectivism is contextual. Rand said that was the case. It is not unchanging. It’s politics give us the framework of a government. Clearly, for Ayn Rand the U.S. Constitution is a less than perfect example of her philosophy fleshed out. Yet the US has the best Constitution and it is the best country she knew of.

She has died and will not be writing any more or amending her past writings to a changing world. However, The Constitution HAS changed. It has been amended. It may be amended again. Therefore, Rand’s political *example* is changing, though her philosophy may be in opposition to some of those changes, and to interpretations by the Supreme Court.

Further fleshing out is the work of the voters and the people they elect PER RAND'S VISION. State and Local governments provide a service people wanted from the times BEFORE the Constitution was written. Local governments give us more services because of their different jurisdictions and duties.

Reread the Constitution. Read your State’s constitution. It does not consist of one philosophical sentence and it most certainly DOES NOT consist of the sentence you wrote, “And yes, you can rightfully do as you please on your property as long as you do not violate the rights of others by whatever it is you do.”

Government consists of legal machinery and a lot of nuts and bolts, and not just a solitary, shining light bulb casting the shadow of the dollar sign.

To reiterate, Trebor wrote:

Property rights are the right to the use and disposal of some thing. And yes, you can rightfully do as you please on your property as long as you do not violate the rights of others by whatever it is you do.

So drunk and rowdy, disorderly conduct, nude bathing and fornication are all just peachy as long as you do them in your own front or back yard? Amped up speakers blasting rock and roll? We are assuming here that there is no “neighborhood agreement that the landowners signed, stopping these behaviors. So, Trebor, does anything go? Not on this planet. Not anywhere.

You need to talk your theories over with a realtor, a surveyor, the county commissioners, and the local sheriff. Buy and own some property. Build on in. Live on it. Your perspective might change from the doctrinaire and philosophic, to the actual. I am not trying to tick you off, but your views are naive.

I wrote:

This “Coming to the Nuisance” doctrine provides a partial remedy to the problem I will call the “Right to a View.”

Trebor responded:

There's no such thing as a "Right to a View."

If I buy the land with a view, I will keep the land and I will keep the view. Laws like Adverse Possession and Coming to the Nuisance are old, tried and true, prescriptions for living life on earth, in a community. An altruist would side with anyone but themselves. An altruist would tell someone learn to live with the intolerable. I am not an altruist.

I wrote:

Scene one: You find the land with that view, spend the exorbitant amount of money for it, and your property extends to the water, ensuring that no one can build between you and your view.

Trebor responded:

No problem, you've ensured your view. However, by what you are arguing (a "Right to a View"), you may not block the view of anyone who lives in back of you (away from the water).

No. the view is better near the water. You will have paid more to be near the water and for the view. You expect to see the great view if that’s what you bought. If you did not buy waterfront property you expect to see the back of a house. I really get the feeling I am talking to someone who is not serious. These principles go back to Merry Olde England.

Trebor wrote:

If there's a view that you value, you have the right to take right's respecting actions to ensure your view. Buy the land that is or may prove to create an obstacle. Contract with others to ensure your beloved view, etc.

Expletive deleted. Son, could you dumb that down a little more? You are obviously refusing to think beyond your catechism of stock Randian phrases.

Trebor wrote:

Please objectively define "excessive animal cruelty."

You know senseless cruelty when you see it. I live in farming country. We raise the usual critters around here. We slaughter them. We hunt. I suggest you write to PETA or the SPCA. I don’t choose to use graphic language here.

I just gave you a chunk of my time. Have the courtesy to think about what I just wrote.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Trebor]

Expletive deleted. Son, could you dumb that down a little more? You are obviously refusing to think beyond your catechism of stock Randian phrases.

Given that you have confused me with your son, along with the rest of the nonsensical gibberish you've written, I have to wonder if you are perhaps senile. Or if perhaps you simply failed to take your medication and are having trouble thinking clearly.

I stand by my statement: "Property rights are the right to the use and disposal of some thing. And yes, you can rightfully do as you please on your property as long as you do not violate the rights of others by whatever it is you do."

If anyone else cares to try and find anything worthwhile in what you've written, anything that they think they should "have the courtesy to think about," well, I'll leave that to them.

As for your objective definition of "excessive animal cruelty," I guess that I'll have to accept that you gave it your best shot: "excessive animal cruelty" is senseless cruelty which anyone knows when they see it. Can't get more objective that that!

[RationalBiker]

I've taken the liberty to consolidate my response to several of your posts in this one post. That is why you will see quoted sections that were not originally together in the same post.

Would I have a right, as long as the theatre owner did not kick me out to shout over the movie sound track until the dingaling in the ten gallon cowboy hat removes it? Is there nothing that can be considered disorderly conduct if it is on private property and no rights are theoretically broken?

If the theater owner allows you to yell and shout over the movie sound track, his theater is likely to make a lot less money when people find out that the movie experience there is dominated by the lowest common denominator, yelling hooligans and movie going cowboys. Other theaters will realize that they can provide a better experience by having some rules of use for their property and in doing so increase their revenues by becoming popular with people who don't wear ten gallon hats or compete vocally with the movie sound track.

"Disorderly Conduct", even in today's law, is something far further than what you mention, as it is conduct that is tumultuous and likely to incite violence or public danger. In the private property theater example, you have a recourse through management to resolve your problem, which if they fail to do, you have the recourse to utilize another theater. The proper course of action is not to start slugging it out with the cowboy. If you paid money to the theater for an experience that was not delivered (a contract was broken per se), you would have right to civil recourse through the courts. There does not need to be a law about being courteous, wearing hats in theaters or about yelling above the soundtrack. However, yelling "FIRE" in the crowded movie house is different as that would be more "disorderly" and likely to cause public danger, which does threaten the rights of the other theater goers.

Government consists of legal machinery and a lot of nuts and bolts, and not just a solitary, shining light bulb casting the shadow of the dollar sign.

Being a smart-ass won't take you far on this board. The vast majority of people on this board know exactly what government ACTUALLY is right now, and the purpose of discussing politics in Objectivism is to try to work out what government SHOULD be based on principles of individual rights and man's nature. You will continue to have difficulty grasping what others are trying to communicate with you if you insist on only looking at the way things are and understand that they are frequently taking about what the way they think things should be.

Reread the Constitution. Read your State’s constitution. It does not consist of one philosophical sentence and it most certainly DOES NOT consist of the sentence you wrote, “And yes, you can rightfully do as you please on your property as long as you do not violate the rights of others by whatever it is you do.”

Why? Has someone asserted that any constitution says that?

I really get the feeling I am talking to someone who is not serious.

That's why you should think objectively, your feelings are not a source of cognition. Trebor is not joking or playing around here.

These principles go back to Merry Olde England.

And? That does not provide a philosophical argument as to why we should keep going by those principles. The US fought a big war against Merry Olde England to specifically change a number of ways things were being done, but some folks think they just didn't change things quite enough.

Expletive deleted. Son, could you dumb that down a little more? You are obviously refusing to think beyond your catechism of stock Randian phrases.

Once again, being a smart ass and insulting people won't help you here.

You know senseless cruelty when you see it.

Epistemology doesn't work that way. You don't "just know" things without a process of concept formation and mentally defining those concepts, particularly when using higher level abstractions such as "senseless cruelty". Can you objectively define "excessive animal cruelty" or not?

I just gave you a chunk of my time. Have the courtesy to think about what I just wrote.

'

Why do you think anyone is not considering what you wrote to begin with?

And we all become rational Vulcans.

For all that Star Trek was, I curse it for creating in people's minds the idea that emotions are "illogical", or that there is some dichotomy between logic and emotion. Oh wait, you were just being a smart ass again weren't you? That you say this suggests that you haven't fully grasped the distinctions between and proper roles of emotion and logic in Objectivist Epistemology.

Remember that old western where the leading man sees some guy whipping his horse and he puts a stop to it? Was that “The Virginian?” I remember the heroine considered him a hero. Would it be impossible in your objective court to prove that I did not commit assault and battery on the horse whipper, by stopping him? Could I prove in Judge Narragansett’s court that not only am I harmed by someone else’s cruelty to animals, but that there is harm to children watching the abuse too, and that such abuse cheapens everyone’s life? Is it also not a consideration that animal torturers very frequently become human torturers?

I have to confess that I've never watched "The Virginian" for it's philosophical value.

[Peter Taylor]

Trebor writes over and over again:

"Property rights are the right to the use and disposal of some thing. And yes, you can rightfully do as you please on your property as long as you do not violate the rights of others by whatever it is you do."

Some of our disagreement may be between what we both think we are talking about. I am talking about the actual. If I want to keep my view Or if I want to put a store on my property I could just go and do that. What would happen? I would be cited by the county for not getting the permits required.

If I kept my store's doors open they would send the Sheriff to close them. I tell the Sheriff I can rightfully do as I please on my property as long as I do not violate the rights of others by doing what I do.

He says sorry. Go talk to zoning.

So I march down to the county seat and I say, I can rightfully do as I please on my property as long as I do not violate the rights of others by doing what I do.

She says let me get my supervisor.

The supervisor comes in and says what can I do for you”

I answer, I can rightfully do as I please on my property as long as I do not violate the rights of others by doing what I do.

He or she says, No you can’t.

I loudly say, I can rightfully do as I please on my property as long as I do not violate the rights of others by doing what I do.

So I get to meet the Sheriff again.

Calling someone “Son,” here on the Eastern Shore is like using the words “Mac” or “Dude,” or “Bud.”

I will keep my view, Trebor. And I see you are from the great state of Texas.

If the Constitution is improved to more perfectly reflect Randian Ideals after the next few elections, there will still be State Governments. That is where there would be competition for productive citizens, but that is another story.

Thanks for the lively exchange.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[RationalBiker]

Some of our disagreement may be between what we both think we are talking about. I am talking about the actual.

So should I take it that you did not come to a forum on Objectivism to actually discuss Objectivism, but rather give lectures on current zoning and property laws?

I've taken the liberty of finding a couple of forums that are more in line with what you seem to want to discuss.

Real Estate and Property Law

Real Estate Law

I'm betting that on those forums you won't even have to pull out contemptuous little phrases like "You are obviously refusing to think beyond your catechism of stock Randian phrases."

Edited April 24, 2011 by RationalBiker

[Dante]

Some of our disagreement may be between what we both think we are talking about. I am talking about the actual.

Notice the title of the thread: 'How would this be handled in an Objectivist Society?' This thread is not about 'the actual.'

[Peter Taylor]

Dante wrote, "Notice the title of the thread: 'How would this be handled in an Objectivist Society?' This thread is not about 'the actual.'"

end quote

Fair enough. I was not trying to hijack the thread, Dante and RationalBiker. I was trying to challenge Objectivists. I did not want to start my own thread at this time.

Is it not at all possible that challenges to your "contextual philosophy" will lead to more knowledge? It is a shame if advances to Objectivism come from outside the Objectivist Establishment.

I hope to correspond with people who can think outside the box, "post Rand." I have been reading Rand since High School many years ago. If you do not wish to speak to my thinking that is certainly your privilege, but there may be room here for someone who wants to rock the boat a bit.

Peter Taylor

[Peter Taylor]

You wrote:

I'm betting that on those forums you won't even have to pull out contemptuous little phrases like "You are obviously refusing to think beyond your catechism of stock Randian phrases."

RB, I don't want to hear recited phrases. Yes I am here to discuss Objectivism. It does pertain to the real world though it is out of place to quote Rand to a County Commissioner. Frankly, I am dumbfounded, by the response to going off topic a bit. The topic seemed to have run its course but I thought it would be a good place to help me solve a dilemma in my own life.

I mentioned that I had had trouble with billboards for instance. My family is the one that owns the billboards on Route 113 which become Route 13 as it goes into Virginia.

Peter

[Dante]

Fair enough. I was not trying to hijack the thread, Dante and RationalBiker. I was trying to challenge Objectivists. I did not want to start my own thread at this time.

Is it not at all possible that challenges to your "contextual philosophy" will lead to more knowledge? It is a shame if advances to Objectivism come from outside the Objectivist Establishment.

Okay, but simply stating what the current laws on zoning are isn't a challenge to standard Objectivist ideas; it's not a philosophical statement at all. It's just a description. A challenge would be making a philosophical case for zoning laws to have a proper place in an objective government, perhaps by providing a clear argument that zoning laws are somehow important for the protection of individual rights.

Edited April 24, 2011 by Dante

[Peter Taylor]

Happy Easter! I guess.

I don’t want to have my head snapped off.

I am not a Christian or a member of any religion but I am having baked ham for Easter and I just put the leaf in the table to accommodate family members.

Does anyone else "celebrate" religious or pagan holidays?

Again, the best to all on Easter.

Peter Taylor

[RationalBiker]

I hope to correspond with people who can think outside the box, "post Rand."

The presumption being that people who have thought about and accepted Objectivist premises have not also thought outside the box, or given enough thought about the issue to properly formulate their own ideas. Do you see how this smells of "if you don't agree with me, you must not be thinking"? You've come to this forum just a couple days ago while others have been here for years and engaged in many discussions about the principles they are discussing. Additionally, many of these folks carry on discussions outside of this forum. Your talk of public courtesy seems thinly veiled when your actions as a newcomer to this forum do not follow suit.

RB, I don't want to hear recited phrases.

Be that as it may, that does not give you proper cause to be sarcastic or insulting to other members just because you don't want to hear something.

[Peter Taylor]

RB wrote, "Be that as it may, that does not give you proper cause to be sarcastic or insulting to other members just because you don't want to hear something."

Sorry if I come off that way, sounding like I am at the local pub after a few brews. I have almost no mute button in me.

I see your name is Vern. My dad's name was Harley Vernon but he was known as Vern. He was the commander of the VFW Post in Ocean View Delaware and then went on to be state commander in Delaware. He was not a bud of Joe Bidens

My family extends down into Accommac County Virginia with one family, also Taylor's on the other side of the bay in Norfolk. (pronounced nor-fuk : o)

Pleased to meet ya.

Peter

[RationalBiker]

I live in Virginia Beach and have worked in Norfolk for 26 years in law enforcement. We don't live so far apart... I've been up and down the Eastern Shore a couple times traveling north. And no offense intended, but Route 13 never seems to end sometimes.

I see that over at Objectivist Living, the few posts of yours that I read, you are quite capable of civil behavior and well thought out posts. I think if you post here, on topic and in the same manner as there, things might work out better than they have started.

I think if you give folks a chance and not assume that if they have accepted Objectivist premises that they have necessarily cut off their brains, you will find people more willing to provide you with their thoughts.

Welcome to this forum.

[Peter Taylor]

Vern wrote:

I think if you give folks a chance and not assume that if they have accepted Objectivist premises that they have necessarily cut off their brains, you will find people more willing to provide you with their thoughts.

Welcome to this forum.

end quote

I think I will not use the quote function on short notices.

Thanks for the welcome. I was breifly in law enforcement a long time ago. What a learning experience!

Will you please read my next post, where I say your name, in a humorous fashion, when you have the time from the perspective of "is it insulting to you?" I will call it Randian Government.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

formerly of the Ocean City, Maryland Police Department.