My contradiction: Why is a potential violation a violation of rights? Why isn’t it just a potential violation? When can you take action? Is feeling threatened a justification?
I need thoughts on this.
Think about that for a moment. I put a gun to your head and tell you to give me your money. You hand it over. No rights violation occurred because you voluntarily gave me the money and the bullet never struck your body. What is rights violation and where does the principle come from? Man’s means of survival is by the use of his mind, his reason, his rational faculty. I have to judge reality and act in accordance with my judgment in order to live a rational life. In my example, is it your judgment that you should give me your money? If so, then why did you wait until I pointed a gun at you? I’ll send you my address and you can write me a check today! Clearly, the gun made you act in a way that you would not have acted except for the presence of the gun. The principle, then, is that if an action forces you to act in a way that you would not have judged to act on your own with the threat removed, then it is an actual initiation of force, and not a potential violation.
If you ban meth labs in the city for posing a risk as such, what is to prevent the banning of cars (you could hit someone)? Or perhaps even, as mentioned above, electricity? Where do we draw the line?
At the point of establishing that the thing is a real threat. Look again at your question, and what Peikoff’s assistant said (assuming that you quoted him/her verbatim) – “If you ban meth labs in the city for posing a risk as such”, versus “if it’s true that the type of lab you are thinking of is a real threat”. You are talking of pretexts, he is talking of reality. You must first establish that, by its nature, the manufacture of meth is a real threat, which in fact it is not. You are bypassing the step where you establish that there is an actual threat. It’s totally obvious that cars and electricity are also not a threat, so the line is clearly drawn and they are on the “safe” side of that line.
You must first establish that, by its nature, the manufacture of meth is a real threat, which in fact it is not. You are bypassing the step where you establish that there is an actual threat.
Per the IBC Life/Safety Code (which is developed by a private organization), buildings are classified by the type of activity that takes place within, i.e. Business, Mercantile, Institutional, Residential, Storage, etc., and each classification has a corresponding hazard level. These hazards levels are determined by laboratory testing, empirical observation of use, forensic analysis of failures, etc. These codes have been built-upon for well over 150 years and represent an incredible achievement in rational, scientific thought. The Haiti earthquake is an example of what can happen when codes are neither adopted nor enforced.
Too often people believe that codes, plan reviews, permits etc. are designed by the state to “thwart” property owners or infringe upon their rights. However, the reason they developed historically and the role they play in society is to provide legal protection to property owners. This is in keeping with the true nature and purpose of objective law.
Say a developer is spending $120 million on a new high-rise condo building. By documenting with the city – prior to the start of construction – that he is meeting current legal and industry standards for safety, he is gaining a measure of protection from lawsuits that adjacent property owners or future users could bring. Without a code that has been legally adopted by the courts, property owners would be open to endless lawsuits and would have no objective way of resolving disputes. Also, in the event that something unfortunate did happen, such as a fire that results in the loss of a life or damage to adjacent property, the owner (and architects and engineers!) can show that they did design a building to meet current industry standards (a term which has a legal definition).
Without legally adopted codes and legal approval prior to the start of construction, ALL development and construction in the U.S. would come to a grinding halt. Codes are not created by governments – they are adopted by them. Codes are developed by business and industry to provide guidelines for action. This is not a weakness of our type of system, it is a strength. It is an expression of the role that individual rights and private property plays in our lives.
Too often people believe that codes, plan reviews, permits etc. are designed by the state to “thwart” property owners or infringe upon their rights.
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.
Without a code that has been legally adopted by the courts, property owners would be open to endless lawsuits and would have no objective way of resolving disputes.
Nonsense. Courts have been adjudicating damage lawsuits for millenia without any such codes. Such codes are a recent invention. Preventative law is entirely unnecessary.
Without legally adopted codes and legal approval prior to the start of construction, ALL development and construction in the U.S. would come to a grinding halt. Codes are not created by governments – they are adopted by them. Codes are developed by business and industry to provide guidelines for action. This is not a weakness of our type of system, it is a strength. It is an expression of the role that individual rights and private property plays in our lives.
What about specifying a code in a contract? Why does the code need to be legislated? Anything can be owned. Roads could be owned, while you own the property adjacent to it. The road owners could own the sidewalks as well and function as a ‘community organization’. They own your land to begin with, and it is sold to you under a contract that regards certain codes. What about this scenario removes the benefits of city life that you have mentioned. People do benefit from associating with each other through trade, but trade should be the standard for interaction. City councils respond to populism. Why is that a good way of establishing a standard? The people of Haiti don’t have good codes because they don’t have good government. But they don’t have good government because they don’t have an objective society. Individuals can create and and follow good standards without government.
But considering that our society is not structured the way I described, that is, the way things are now require government involvement - if they own roads and public areas, and control utilities. But we’re talking about an ideal.
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? Rights are for rational people, and while there are mental retards, or even hopeless mystics, is there any capacity by which meth can be consumed where it does not automatically and undeniably have the effects I’ve mentioned. Granted, it’s a tough legal argument to make, because some substances affect rational capacity, but aren’t addicting, and can be used responsibly. In then end, an adult has to choose to take meth the first time, and this choice can’t be regulated. As far as producers/sellers of meth are concerned, you could ban their activities on the basis that addicts cannot be expected to have the rational capacity to quit their addiction. Though, as I said, the user had to try it first. And, if selling addictive things becomes in any way illegal, you have an impossible precedent that would inevitably infringe on rights. So, I guess meth ought to be legal, but I hold out hope that there’s an objective legal argument against it. Because there’s no way meth production could ever be considered ethical.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
“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.
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.
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?
) but the “City” as we see the term today would have little to do other than running the local police station.