How would this be handled in an Objectivist Society?

Political Philosophy
1

http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/fqajh/people_pay_attention_when_others_make_sacrifices/

Ignore the extremely liberal-leftist comments…

My question is, how exactly is this dealt with. An Objectivist society would have very strong property rights. So basically, if they won an auction for land, be it a federal or private auction, they own it, period. It is unfortunate however, I feel, that some great natural landmarks may be destroyed through this process. It could be the case that some private person or group would often buy these lands for the sole purposes of preserving them, but in all honesty, how often would they be able to compete monetarily with these large companies? I see a dichotomy here which I don’t know how to resolve without a net negative situation for one or the other side… While I understand the “Exploit the Earth or Die” mentality it seems like there should be SOME boundaries to preserve SOME areas, and I don’t really know how that can be done in a way that would not require inappropriate government force.

2

Personally I think that people who claim that such and such piece of land is “unique” or “among the most beautiful places on earth” needs to get out of the city more.

There are some truly beautiful natural places in this world but they are not that rare. Show me an acre of forest in Yellowstone National Park and I’ll show you one 5 minutes from my house which is virtually indistinguishable from the one in Yellowstone.

It’s another argument about finite resources, yup, they aren’t making any more land; but we haven’t even started to think about “running out” of what we do have.

As for how this would be handled, well as you said individuals would (or could) buy and preserve land. It’s already been done for places like The Garden of the Gods, Colorado

The thing that must not happen is that someone, or a group of someones start thinking that “this property has to be ‘handled’ differently because ### people feel it should be.”

3

http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/fqajh/people_pay_attention_when_others_make_sacrifices/

Ignore the extremely liberal-leftist comments…

My question is, how exactly is this dealt with. An Objectivist society would have very strong property rights. So basically, if they won an auction for land, be it a federal or private auction, they own it, period. It is unfortunate however, I feel, that some great natural landmarks may be destroyed through this process. It could be the case that some private person or group would often buy these lands for the sole purposes of preserving them, but in all honesty, how often would they be able to compete monetarily with these large companies? I see a dichotomy here which I don’t know how to resolve without a net negative situation for one or the other side… While I understand the “Exploit the Earth or Die” mentality it seems like there should be SOME boundaries to preserve SOME areas, and I don’t really know how that can be done in a way that would not require inappropriate government force.

From what I can see, these people are complaining because oil companies are ruining the natural beauty of the land. (“Destroying more pretty areas of land so we can continue sucking the land dry! Down with Bush-Cheney!”) Basically, get the money to buy it, or GTFO. How would they be able to compete with large companies? The concept of “competition” does not include automatic or assured victory, or else there would be no competition. They can compete, but they might lose. Tough. The fact that a company won the bid over you means that a plurality of the people prefer its productive use over the alternatives. Competition in the market process means the consumers vote for their want-satisfaction with their dollars. They promote the winners and demote the losers. The fact that some groups want to use the apparatus of coercion to ensure these means for their ends is nothing more than the desire to elevate their whims to the status of dictatorial edict.

However, I see a point in that there is a problem when the government illegitimately grabs a piece of property, then proceeds to “privatize” it in the name of the “free market.” In the event of expropriation, either there is a specific person it was expropriated from, or it was previously unowned. (There are other, non-expropriative, but still illegitimate ways the government can own property, in which case these rules for privatization would follow the second instance.) In the first case, the property should be returned to the previous owner, or his legal heir. In the second case, the taxpayers are the legitimate owners, and it should be parceled out in shares amongst the taxpayers in proportion to the amount of taxes payed over a lifetime. Then the new totally private corporation can decide how to manage the property. (Then the left-unliberals would whine about accountants and lawyers making windfall profits, but again, GTFO.)

4

I can’t seem to find it now, but I know somewhere on Noodlefood not long ago was a relevant story. Somebody was going to buy that large hill space over Hollywood with the big sign on it and planned to build on it. A bunch of people who liked to look of that hill as it was all got together and pooled money to buy it off the guy I think. Everybody’s happy. If the place is really that massively valued by people to stay as it is rather than be developed for the oil, then let them pool the money to buy it off the current owners. If they can’t do so, then they must not really value it that much after all, more people would rather do other things with their time, energy, and cash.

5

As for how this would be handled, well as you said individuals would (or could) buy and preserve land. It’s already been done for places like The Garden of the Gods, Colorado

The thing that must not happen is that someone, or a group of someones start thinking that “this property has to be ‘handled’ differently because ### people feel it should be.”

The irony is that Penrose (who owned the land) deeded it to the city under the condition that admission never be charged. So it’s basically a permanent liability in the city government’s budget–they can’t get rid of it and they can’t try to make money off of it (though they do have a visitor’s center/gift shop nearby that no doubt pays part of its profit to the city).

But yes, the principle is good–the execution here was not *quite* what it could have been.

6

There are some groups, like this one, that buy land and basically keep it near it’s “natural” state. This one has total assets of just $3 million. I think there is one really large private “conservancy” group in the U.S., but I can’t remember its name right now.

Added: “The Nature Conservancy” was the organization I was thinking of. (Of course, this is not a recommendation. I would not be surprised if a large part of their mission is influencing governments to force land to be conserved. Still, I understand that they also buy lands, with some deals being very large, as reported in this story.)

I assume that timber companies might also be happy to make some money from people who want to hike and hunt in their forests, or even to sell such rights to some third party.

7

The irony is that Penrose (who owned the land) deeded it to the city under the condition that admission never be charged. So it’s basically a permanent liability in the city government’s budget–they can’t get rid of it and they can’t try to make money off of it (though they do have a visitor’s center/gift shop nearby that no doubt pays part of its profit to the city).

But yes, the principle is good–the execution here was not *quite* what it could have been.

Thanks for the correction Steve. When I went there in 2002 I thought it was still owned/held in private hands and was supported by donations.

It is a beautiful place but I think that its popularity and notoriety is due more to its proximity to people rather than unique natural beauty.

8

In an Objectivist society the objective value of the land would be determinant.

If it doesn’t make financial sense to knock down a rock that makes an arch, then that rock arch wouldn’t be knocked down. If the person who pays for and can make use of the land finds more value in doing something else, then they would attempt to realize that value.

9

I would’ve rathered the oil companies had it. I read the article, but there’s no clear indicators of who owned the property before this environmentalist guy did what he did. So for all I know, whoever could legitimately win the auction should have kept the land. That environmentalist dude bid money he didn’t have in order to “save the land” from being drilled for oil, and that’s the only thing about that story that peeves me.

10

Bluecherry wrote:

I can’t seem to find it now, but I know somewhere on Noodlefood not long ago was a relevant story. Somebody was going to buy that large hill space over Hollywood with the big sign on it and planned to build on it.

Did Ayn Rand write or say anything about zoning laws? I would think she would be opposed to zoning laws unless the laws are objective and rational. Yet, aren’t the following *legitimately legal issues*, though at first an Objectivist like myself might side on the side of the “rights holder”:

“Some” Insider Trading,

Privacy issues,

Dirty Tricks,

Mental Cruelty,

The spreading of false and harmful information,

Impersonation,

Cruelty to Animals,

or Frivolous Lawsuits?

All of these issues show gray areas between property rights and the rights of others. And don’t Zoning Laws, to sustain property values, stop coercive activities?

Objective laws define the legal line between what may be considered morally wrong by different individuals who all have different moralities, and legally wrong behaviors, that infringe upon legitimate rights. Many illegal activities do not involve the ‘strict’ initiation of force. Rather, they are considered coercive. I maintain that zoning CAN prohibit coercive activities.

An Objectivist view might be:

The proper purpose of laws is to guarantee your right to do what you want with your property subject only to the restrictions you have agreed to in contracts with others. The purpose of zoning laws are to enable others (who work through the government) to tell you what to do with your property without your agreement.

I agree in spirit, but I disagree on finer points that might be considered coercive in nature, in this strict interpretation of *absolute* property rights.

When someone buys or already owns property the land’s dimensions are strictly defined, by surveying. One could say that piece of land is five acres, relatively rectangular in shape, and borders three other properties and the road. However, there is a further dimension to land: The sky above it, the land below it, the surrounding view, and the air you breath.

Property is more than two dimensional. Let me enumerate some cases that illustrate more than two property dimensions.

Water and mineral rights.

Air quality rights.

The sky above. In other words, sunlight and rainfall rights.

My last three enumerated rights are intertwined and tougher to defend:

Who got there first?

The right to a surrounding view.

And the right to a continuation of a property’s fair value.

Water and mineral rights. This is the easiest to defend property right because virtually everyone agrees, mineral rights under the property are justifiable, and require little defense. However, a corollary right is that no one on surrounding properties can legally pump out ground water until the water table under your property is lowered so much that you have no access to well water.

This issue recently happened in Somerset County, Maryland where a newly built state prison caused dozens of surrounding properties that only had “well water” to go dry, and it stopped Wal-Mart from building a distribution center in that County. And there have been many cases where corporations poisoned the ground water.

Another issue, is using up all the water in a river, or damming it. Should this be legal, if the river previously ran through your property? Not unless you agree. And there have been cases where individuals or countries drilled sideways under a neighbor’s property to steal oil or minerals.

Air quality rights. No one can deny you breathable air, by burning, building a pig farm, or a manufacturing plant near you, without your consent, if the land is zoned residential or agricultural.

The sky above. No one may plant trees that extend over your property, or block the sun or the rain, with a building, without your permission, if the land is zoned residential, or agricultural.

Who got there first, and the surrounding view? This is a tough one. If I have bought property with the sensible expectation that I may have a certain view, then a property owner near me should not be legally able to block my view, at a later date. This happens frequently in tourist areas, where preexisting buildings have a view of the ocean, or of mountains, or of a waterfall. This right to a surrounding view should also extend to commercial property.

And now my last, more nebulous concept. Does a person have a right to diminish your property’s value, because of something that they do on their property? Let us postulate that I have a Beverly Hills estate and The Clampetts move in next door . . .

I am dumbfounded that no Objectivists have tackled these issues. What a great subject for an essay. Let me throw out the gauntlet! I would like to see a definitive article on Zoning published. Who is up to the task?

As to the Hollywood sign. The City should buy the land and name it a historic landmark.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Notes:

I am no lawyer or Objectivist scholar, but how does my view square with the following quotes?

Ayn Rand, “What is Capitalism” Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal, p. 19

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

11

I forget if there was anything she said in particular about zoning laws, but the standard positions among people supportive of Oism (something I agree with) is indeed opposition to zoning laws based on property rights. However, your right to do stuff on your property doesn’t give you the right to do something that would impose fuck ups upon somebody else’s property, like, say, move up stream from somebody and start dumping toxic chemicals into the stream that will then go and wash up on your neighbor’s property, killing off some pet ducks they have or something.

““Some” Insider Trading, Privacy issues,” Could you clarify what you mean here? I don’t want to get too caught up in the specifics of any particular examples, but I’d like to get a better idea of what kinds of things you are thinking of when you say these two categories.

“Dirty Tricks, Mental Cruelty,” Does it involve force or fraud? If so, it’s illegal, if not, just being an asshole isn’t properly illegal and you just need to pick your company better. The latter though, if it involves children under somebody’s care who is doing it to them perhaps in some cases can justify transferring guardianship of the child to a new person.

“The spreading of false and harmful information,” False harmful information is a form a fraud, thus slander and libel laws. If it’s harmful, but not false and doesn’t involve fraud or force to obtain (breaking into somebody’s house or computer or violating contract agreements about trade secrets or something as examples of ones that can be harmful and true, but would still involve criminal acts), then in that case, maybe you just shouldn’t be doing something you don’t feel proud of and then furthermore, going and telling it to people too. That was your own mistake. Proper response to that kind of thing is probably just to reconsider your contact with that person and maybe knock off what you were doing if it was anything that bad.

“Impersonation,” Assuming we’re not talking about humorous impressions, this is fraud and thus illegal.

“Cruelty to Animals,” Though animals have no rights as rights stem from our nature as reliant on our rational faculty primarily to live unlike other animals, cruelty to animals is legal, but morally frowned upon for what it says about the person who actually tortures animals for shits and giggles, enjoying their pains. Not everything that is properly legal is moral. The government only exists to see to it that people be left to live as they each see fit, not to make sure everybody is totally good.

“Frivolous Lawsuits”

Remove the ton of improper laws, expand our court system and finance it with voluntary payments, and work on making the proper laws clearer and this shouldn’t be a big deal anymore.

I’m not presently the best one to ask about a lot of these other land related rights issues, I’ll let somebody else answer those, but this one “And there have been many cases where corporations poisoned the ground water,” is the same as the issue I mentioned with the stream earlier. One clear culprit causing notable damage to other people’s resources/stuff is, even if not intentionally so, initiating force on those others and thus, properly illegal. Similar for the pig farm I think, but who would be forcing who when they move in depends on who got there first I think. If the pig farm is second, they’re forcing their neighbors, but if the pig farm was there first, the new neighbors new what the conditions were when they bought it and that smell was part of the deal, so then them coming in to tell the pig farmer he has to quit is imposing on the farmer, who didn’t have these neighbors to account for when he bought the place for pig farming.

“No one may plant trees that extend over your property, or block the sun or the rain, with a building, without your permission, if the land is zoned residential, or agricultural.”

You mean the branches, since this is about the sky, right? I’ve never heard of that before. People have trees and buildings casting shadows and reaching over into other people’s yards all he time. Never heard of this as a property rights problem even with current laws before, not unless some branch falls off in a storm onto a neighbor’s car or something. So, I think I’ll let somebody else answer this part too who is more familiar with these shadow and branches junk.

As for the surrounding view, THAT you do not own any rights to. Put up a picture or something if you’re really bothered by the look of something somebody else made on their own property. Or, buy the land yourself if you really insist on securing a view. In fact, this particular issue of the view is also addressed on Noodlefood when the author’s neighbors were trying to prevent her from building a new barn because they liked the look of her old as dirt crappy barn.

“As to the Hollywood sign. The City should buy the land and name it a historic landmark.”

No. This one has already been answered satisfactorily to all parties involved through voluntary exchange and respected property rights. As a matter of fact, legally barring people from building there would be completely backward thing to do in naming it a historical landmark because that sign was originally put up by the property owner in hopes of attracting people to buy some of the land and build on it.

Also, I don’t remember any particular place off the top of my head, but I think you can find some writing on zoning laws on ARIs blog. Fraud by the way, just in case you aren’t familiar yet, is considered a roundabout type of force, because it is used to get people to act in ways they would not ;likely choose to given the actual facts of the case. So, mentioning fraud as properly illegal doesn’t contradict that last quote.

12

I am dumbfounded that no Objectivists have tackled these issues. What a great subject for an essay. Let me throw out the gauntlet! I would like to see a definitive article on Zoning published. Who is up to the task?

The Evils of Zoning: Subjecting Landowners to Arbitrary Whim

Isn’t Zoning Necessary to Prevent Nuisances? (Part 2)

The Antidote for Zoning: Bringing Objectivity to the Land Development Process (Part 3)

The Antidote for Zoning: The “Coming to the Nuisance” Doctrine (Part 4)

13

Bluecherry wrote;

quote

I forget if there was anything she said in particular about zoning laws, but the standard positions among people supportive of Oism (something I agree with) is indeed opposition to zoning laws based on property rights. However, your right to do stuff on your property doesn’t give you the right to do something that would impose f&^* ups upon somebody else’s property, like, say, move up stream from somebody and start dumping toxic chemicals into the stream that will then go and wash up on your neighbor’s property, killing off some pet ducks they have or something.

end quote

My, you do have a colorful way of speaking. Hence the name? The eff word? S#&* and whistles? Are those English profanities?

Bloody Hell!

I agree that zoning can be used to violate property rights. However, I disagree that there is no place for zoning at the local level at this time. No Objectivist is for “The Nanny State,” and voluntary agreements are better, but I am not for the complete abolition of building codes and zoning. I would make that one of the last things abolished by an Objectivist Government.

Of course, insurance voluntarily contracted for, would decrease severe errors in building in a flood or hurricane zone, or an earthquake fault zone. “Obvious flaws” in a building might keep someone from a commercial establishment. I stayed at the Waldorf Astoria once, three doors down from composer Cole Porters room, which was great, but the ceiling by the bathroom hallway fell down while we were there exposing wires.

No zoning? No laws? Everyone can do as they please if they are not violating individual rights until someone persuades you to stop? Or legally makes you stop? I am for laissez faire capitalism but that sounds more like anarchy. How would you like those pharmaceutical pills coming from China? With lead and arsenic or without? I know, I know, it hasn’t been proven yet and no one has died . . . yet. Would you be against child protection laws? I think laws can be objective and “preventative of wrongs.”

The best examples of objective laws not based directly on individual rights that I can presently think of, are animal cruelty laws. I have a pretty good basis for the prevention of cruelty to animals somewhere but I will leave that issue as is. My brief argument is: It is wrong even though animals don’t have rights. However, the reason animal cruelty laws can be considered objective is not based on the rights of animals. It is based on the rights of humans. We do not like seeing animals abused or tortured. Why put up with it?

You disagreed with my assertion that the surrounding view is an objective property right. Now I am not talking about a neighbor wanting to build a new barn that I think looks crappy, either too modern or not rustic enough. And I am not talking about remedies like voluntary exchange that preserve property rights in the nature of “I will pay you not to erect your billboard that will block my view of the Rocky Mountains.”

There is more to this issue that flat out stating, “You may do as you please as long as you do not initiate force to violate my rights.”

One solution is found in Grames post and I will address that next time.

Thank you so much for your time and analysis.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

14

The best examples of objective laws not based directly on individual rights that I can presently think of, are animal cruelty laws. I have a pretty good basis for the prevention of cruelty to animals somewhere but I will leave that issue as is. My brief argument is: It is wrong even though animals don’t have rights. However, the reason animal cruelty laws can be considered objective is not based on the rights of animals. It is based on the rights of humans. We do not like seeing animals abused or tortured. Why put up with it?

What “we” like to see or do not like to see is NOT an objective basis for law. Also, humans do not have some right to see or not see something. I don’t necessarily like seeing fat people wearing spandex, but I think it would be a stretch to create a law preventing such behavior.

15

There is more to the issue of *property rights* than the flat-out “Objectively sounding” statement: “You may do as you please on your property as long as you do not initiate force to violate my rights.”

Rational Biker wrote:

What “we” like to see or do not like to see is NOT an objective basis for law. Also, humans do not have some right to see or not see something.

It is more complicated than that, RB. Of course no one has a right to tell a Goth to dress appropriately. What’s with the black paint on your face, Kid? I may think the person is saying, “Look at me. Please look at me!” but that is irrelevant in a free society. However, do you have a right (and not just the *might*) to tell someone to remove their ten gallon hat in a movie theatre? Of course you do.

Grames gave a link to the following quote and I apologize for its length. I picked and chose what I considered relevant.

The Antidote for Zoning: Bringing Objectivity to the Land Development Process by David Wilens:

“Coming to the Nuisance” means exactly what it sounds like: if a property owner is using his property so as to cause a nuisance to another property owner, then the property owner who was the earlier to start his particular use is the one who has the right to continue his use . . .

Because the right to property means the right to use it indefinitely, it follows that, once a property owner has started using his property in a particular fashion, he has the right to stop others from interfering with that particular use. This is the rationale behind the Coming to the Nuisance doctrine’s requirement that, when uses of two properties conflict with each other, the use which has priority is the one started first, and the owner has the right to stop others from interfering with this prior use (the “first in time, first in right” rule).

Since the right to property necessarily implies the right to use it indefinitely, and since the right to use property indefinitely implies the first in time, first in right rule, it follows that respecting property rights ultimately means respecting the Coming to the Nuisance doctrine too. The two are inseparable.

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

I will humorously leave commercial development and ten gallon hats out of the “scenario” for now, and just concentrate on residential land.

Here is my example. I go to a residential realtor looking for resort land near the shore line with a view across the bay of the carousels and rides that I enjoyed on my childhood vacations.

If anyone has seen the Sissy Spacek film, “Violets are Blue” there is such a beautiful nighttime scene from a boat on the bay with the carousel going round in the background, and you can hear crowds of ecstatic children too.

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.

Scene two: You find the land with that view, and your property extends to within ONE BUILDING LOT from the water, and you built your home. The “Coming to the Nuisance” doctrine ensures that no one can build in between you and your view, BECAUSE YOU BUILT FIRST.

Scene three: You find the land with that view, and your property extends to within ONE BUILDING LOT from the water, and you built your home. However, there was already another one story home in front of you, before you built. The “Coming to the Nuisance” doctrine does not protect you, so you build a two story home, putting your living room with its better view on the second floor. Do you now have any objective, legal right under the “Coming to the Nuisance” doctrine from the closer to the bay homeowner building a three story home there, that blocks your second story view?

There are more scenarios but I will stop there. This is the sort of dilemma that flat out statements of “rights” do not cover. Just as non violent *coercion* was added to the *Non Initiation Of Force* concept by Ayn Rand, the right to property also needs rational clarification. “There oughta be a law.”

I and my family have been personally involved in this issue but I will not give the specifics, except to say I have been dealing with “wetlands delineation,” perk tests, billboards, rights to a view, and concepts like *Coming to the Nuisance* and *Adverse Possession*, which is briefly an Anglo-American property law, that means someone built too close, or on someone else’s property with or without the property owner’s permission, in good faith.

Adverse Possession has a statute of limitation in most U.S. states that allows an adverse possessor to acquire legal title if the owner does not seek timely possession.

A quick and all too common example is when a ditch is dug for drainage and the ditch digger goes around a tree, but the rest of the ditch splits the property line. Years and years later a survey is done discovering the discrepancy that has been forgotten or never known by the current land owners.

Thank you so much for your time and analysis, Grame and Rational Biker. Objectivism Online is a good site to build.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

16

It is more complicated than that, RB.

Here is the argument you presented about laws against cruelty to animals (my bold);

The best examples of objective laws not based directly on individual rights that I can presently think of, are animal cruelty laws. I have a pretty good basis for the prevention of cruelty to animals somewhere but I will leave that issue as is. My brief argument is: It is wrong even though animals don’t have rights. However, the reason animal cruelty laws can be considered objective is not based on the rights of animals. It is based on the rights of humans. We do not like seeing animals abused or tortured. Why put up with it?

That is not a good objective basis for laws. You can personally create something you want to call a “Right to a View”, but that doesn’t mean it is right, or that it is objectively based. It does not matter that you don’t like to see cruelty to animals. The only valid basis for any law protecting an animal is when that animal is the property of another person at which point you do not have a right to damage the property of another person. That is where the rights of man enter into protecting animals, not just because people do not want to see certain things.

Rights pertain to a freedom to act in a social context to pursue your life. They do not pertain to things or situations that you might find personally preferable. You built first on YOUR land. You building first on YOUR land offers no basis for why someone can’t build second on THEIR land. If you build on your land with an expectation of having a view of the water but KNOWING there is land between your view and the water that could be built upon, you are taking a chance that your view will be diminished by another property owner UNLESS there is some contractual agreement between you and that land owner which prevents them from building.

However, do you have a right (and not just the *might*) to tell someone to remove their ten gallon hat in a movie theatre? Of course you do.

You may have the right to tell them, but that does not infer they have an obligation to comply. They have a right in return to tell you to pack sand. You are not obligated to comply either. :slight_smile: Your recourse is first with the property owner or theater management who may have rules against such hat wear in the facility. If you find such property owners do not prevent people from wearing large hats in their theater, you might likely choose another theater where your view of the screen will not be impeded. The “large hat” theater owner is very likely to suffer the consequences of the free market should people regularly find their view of the screen is hampered by theater-going cowboys.

17

There is more to the issue of *property rights* than the flat-out “Objectively sounding” statement: “You may do as you please on your property as long as you do not initiate force to violate my rights.”

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.

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

There’s no such thing as a “Right to a View.”

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.

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). If someone lives on property behind you, you can buy the property you want, but why would you? You can’t build on it — you would be blocking their “Right to a View” of the water.

Scene two: You find the land with that view, and your property extends to within ONE BUILDING LOT from the water, and you built your home. The “Coming to the Nuisance” doctrine ensures that no one can build in between you and your view, BECAUSE YOU BUILT FIRST.

By your “principle” (a “Right to a View”) no one can build anything in any direction of your property if they would be blocking your view at all in any direction. Why is the view of the water the only “Right to a View” recognized?

Scene three: You find the land with that view, and your property extends to within ONE BUILDING LOT from the water, and you built your home. However, there was already another one story home in front of you, before you built. The “Coming to the Nuisance” doctrine does not protect you, so you build a two story home, putting your living room with its better view on the second floor. Do you now have any objective, legal right under the “Coming to the Nuisance” doctrine from the closer to the bay homeowner building a three story home there, that blocks your second story view?

Same problem. You have no right, by your own “Right to a View” “principle,” to build your house upwards given that you’ll be blocking my view (or anyone else’s who lives behind you). Etc.

There are more scenarios but I will stop there. This is the sort of dilemma that flat out statements of “rights” do not cover. Just as non violent *coercion* was added to the *Non Initiation Of Force* concept by Ayn Rand, the right to property also needs rational clarification. “There oughta be a law.”

Non-violent coercion was not added to the non initiation of force principle by Miss Rand as some kind of necessary, neglected qualifier. It is merely a matter of grasping what rights are and therefore how they are violated. Rights can only be violated by physical force of others. Right’s violating physical force is not limited to a punch in the nose.

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.

18

I should also point out that even using your above “Coming to the Nuisance” provision would not (IMO) cover your “view” when your “view” extends beyond your property boundaries. The water you wish to see is not your property. The building the other land owner erects is NOT interfering with you using your property, it is interfering with your use (the viewing of the water) of property that is not yours.

Please bear in mind, if you were not already, on this site we frequently talk about what should be as opposed to what is. Referring to existing laws certainly demonstrate how things are, but they do not necessarily demonstrate how things should be.

19

I wrote about cruelty to animals:

It is wrong even though animals don’t have rights. However, the reason animal cruelty laws can be considered objective is not based on the rights of animals. It is based on the rights of humans. We do not like seeing animals abused or tortured. Why put up with it?

RationalBiker responded:

That is not a good objective basis for laws. You can personally create something you want to call a “Right to a View”, but that doesn’t mean it is right, or that it is objectively based. It does not matter that you don’t like to see cruelty to animals.

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?

In theory I agree that property is property and that animals are wild or someone’s property and that all property should be guaranteed under the US Constitution as a right and not just alluded to there as “The Pursuit of Happiness.”

I will have to disagree that excessive animal cruelty cannot be objectively defined and enforced. It may be a nebulous concept to many, as is air pollution, or blocking a view, but it is just so morally right that I would not delete the law from the books except as the last thing deleted from an Objectivist Government just before all taxes are eliminated.

And we all become rational Vulcans.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

20

Government is not properly an agency for enforcing morality but for protecting individual rights.