To the people responding with choice A, do you disagree that noise/silence
in the surrounding air should not be considered to be some kind of publicly
shared infrastructure just like radio spectrum or the underlying water table?
Would you prefer it if everyone could blast away with their high powered
radio transmitters on any and all frequencies they wish? That just anyone
who wants to could dump toxic waste into the water table just next to your
farmland? Or should there be some kind of mechanism to handle disputes in
these physically shared things, either auctions or committees to arbitrate?
Bradley Felton wrote:
> At 05:31 PM 11/1/00 -0500, Eliezer wrote:
> >Suppose Person A wants to open up a bar...
> > (A) Signing a petition to deny a liquor license is an improper use of
> >government mechanisms, constituting the initiation of force.
> I agree with "A". The condo-owners don't own the rights to the formerly
> quiet lot across the street that they were enjoying the benefit of, anymore
> than a person on an airline "owns" the right to the empty seat next to them
> which they didn't purchase a ticket for.
> The legitimate way for the condo-owners to control their surrounding
> environment is to purchase it; then they could leave it forever
> undeveloped, or turn it into rental units with strict noise rules, or
> -- Bradley Felton PGP encrypted mail preffered
-- Brian Atkins Director, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:19 MDT