don't read if you have rationalism:injunctions

[flyboy2160]

This topic has been thought provoking in the past. I hope it proves so here.

The first major question is whether the traditional preemptive injunction (a court prohibition of certain action because of the potential for damage) is a valid concept?

For instance, if your neighbor announces he will drain the water from his pool and store gasoline instead, without a cover, 20 feet from your house, do you have to wait until it explodes to stop him from doing it again or can you rightfully ask the court to prohibit this activity before he even starts?

Traditionally, the answer properly depends on the context: the answer will be different between a pool 20 feet away and one in the middle of your neighbor’s desert lot that is mile on a side.

If one grants that this concept is valid, a floodgate of possible applications opens.

Can one validly ask for proof that a new style of construction used on a 200 story building about to be built next to yours is sound? (I’m assuming through all these examples a rational court process, properly based on individual rights, in a constitutional republic, not the subjective mess we have now.)

Can one validly ask a court to prohibit your neighbor from operating his back hoe 5 feet from your house while he is under the influence? From driving his car up the driveway next to your house under the influence? Driving next to you on the road under the influence? Flying his airplane over your house under the influence?

The next major issue is whether these indidual instances can properly be codified into a universally applicable law. For instance, if a number of court inquiries factually determine that a certain level of blood alcohol results in serious motor skill impairment, could the legislature properly prohibit anyone driving with a blood alcohol level above a certain amount?

I’ve heard the arguments that this is restricting the rights of someone who can hold his liquor and that any restriction based on a “potential” is invalid.

Ok, debate is on!

[DavidOdden]

For instance, if your neighbor announces he will drain the water from his pool and store gasoline instead, without a cover, 20 feet from your house, do you have to wait until it explodes to stop him from doing it again or can you rightfully ask the court to prohibit this activity before he even starts?

This is a false dichotomy. As a volitional being, you can violate a person's rights anytime you want. You presumably mean "is it right to...", not "can you". But secondly, you cannot (should not) ever stop your neighbor from draining his pool (etc) unless a violation of your rights is absolutely undeniable and imminent. You should leave the stopping to the courts. Which brings us to the third question; the answer is, you can rightfully ask the court to stop him from whatevering, well before he starts.

In the latter case, you should consult with someone who have a better idea of the relevant legal issues, since "before he even starts" suggests to me that he hasn't drained the pool or purchased the gas, in which case I have to ask, what exactly is the threat? From your selfish POV, you should check with a lawyer, since in a decent legal system, there is a penalty for bringing frivolous legal actions.

Can one validly ask for proof that a new style of construction used on a 200 story building about to be built next to yours is sound?

No, but if you have proof that it is unsafe esp. is a threat to you, that could persade the courts to intervene. The operative term here is "proof", not just "argument".

Can one validly ask a court to prohibit your neighbor from operating his back hoe 5 feet from your house while he is under the influence?

Normally, yes, since 5 feet is trespassing (so the backhoe and "influence" is irrelevant). In case he owns the land up t 5 feet from your house, no.

Driving next to you on the road under the influence?

Only if you are the road owner (you need to specify ownership in all these cases).

For instance, if a number of court inquiries factually determine that a certain level of blood alcohol results in serious motor skill impairment, could the legislature properly prohibit anyone driving with a blood alcohol level above a certain amount?

No. You have the right to stay off the road if a drunk person is on it, so you have no right to compel him to stay off the road. Beyond that, it's a contractual matter between you and the road owner.