Brian D Williams wrote:
> From: "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >Suppose Person A wants to open up a bar, and applies for a liquor
> >license. Persons B, consisting of the resident/owners of a nearby
> >condominium complex, are annoyed by this for the standard reasons
> >- increased noise, increased traffic, violent drunks wandering
> >around, and decreased property values. Suppose that Persons B sign
> >a petition to deny a liquor license to Person A, thus annoying
> >Person A and any investors thereof. Do you agree or disagree
> >with the following statements?
> >(A) Signing a petition to deny a liquor license is an improper use
> >of government mechanisms, constituting the initiation of force.
> >(B) Signing the petition may be a minor initiation of force, but
> >that's a justified response to the bar's proposed initiation of
> >noise (or the other negative effects).
> >(C) The city government deciding the issue is the nearest
> >available approximation to the dispute resolution mechanisms that
> >would exist in a libertarian society - for example, distributed
> >ownership of "noise rights".
> >(D) This is a straightforward conflict of interest between the bar
> >builders and the condo owners, and invoking libertarian ethics is
> >needlessly complicating the issue.
> "C" is the clear choice.
Agreed. The existing stake holders in any area or resource should have
the right to some say regarding things they think will influence the
value of their stake. However you produce that effect consistent with
the rights of the newcomer, this needs to be recognized and dealt with.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:19 MDT