From: "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <email@example.com>
>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.
This is in fact common practice, Park Ridge Il, also known locally
as "Pleasantville" ( Where Hillary Clinton is from) is a "dry"
community, only restaurants may serve alcohol.
Some local entrepreneurs open a "Hooters" just accross the street
from the boundary and the town tried to denie them a liquor
The Hooters held out and the matter was finaly decided by a judge.
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
Adler Planetarium www.adlerplanetarium.org
Life Extension Foundation, www.lef.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:19 MDT