FreedomPhilosophy

Yes, I don't think drifting smoke from a BBQ is an act of agression! It could be a real nausance, possibly cause damage (say they had a fish pond, linen out) and recourse to recompense through legal action might be reasonable. Just negotiating or telling your neighbors first would seem to be a sensible approach and if you live very near your neighbor then something more contained would be nice. I think the "your a dick" label only applies when there seems to be no valid case presented or the case is frivolous. A response to it might be to point out that the other person isn't being considerate. And being inconsiderate isn't UPB?

You are right, it's not consent. However staying somewhere when you were free to move away suggests there may of been some kind of acceptance. Of course if the pollution was undetectable at the time, then no. I think I answered this, lighting a fire is not an act of agression, people do it to get warm, dispose of waste and such. So long as no one else is harmed then there's no reason to stop them assuming it's all done on their property. If someone is harmed then they should have a legal remedy, unless perhaps they were warned of the risk and stayed anyway. Theft and vandalism are acts of agression, there is no similarity, when these actions are carried out someone will definately be harmed. You don't consent to breath in atmosphere that I have breathed either. We both have an equal claim to use atmosphere in a way we choose so long as we cause no harm. If you want to claim that someone is harming you then the onus is on you do demonstrate this.

Who is forcing people to breath pollution in? So long as you are free to move away no force is being used. Having a lit fire is not an act of agression. If pollution from a lit fire did cause you or your property any detectable harm you would have the right to sue in common law. If health care were fully privatised then there would be an incentive for people to get healthy and the polluting hospitals would be minimal in number. If they make too much pollution they get sued and sort out their problem. This pollution issue is a farce. Pollution is an example of "the trouble with the commons", not the trouble with the NAP.

I don't see how pollution is a violation of the NAP. We can tell the difference between dropping nerve gas on some people, obviously an act of agression, and someone lighting a fire or driving a car. Lighting fires and driving cars are normal parts of life with a non offensive function and a possibly offensive side effect. If the pollution from lighting a fire or driving a car can be shown to directly cause someone harm then they would still have a legal remedy even if it were not an act of agression. If the level of pollution emitted causes surrounding people no detectable harm then a legal remedy is not reasonable. The issue of pollution looks like an example of "the trouble with the commons", it would probably be worthy of discussion within that context.

I've been following Stefs material for quite some while now and have found it both informative and transformative - thank you so much Stefan. I'm a philosophical parent wanting to ply my trade at blogging and promoting liberty after too long working as a software developer and consultant. Occasionally I see things that I don't agree with and instead of repeat myself endlessly feel a need to have my say as a recorded broadcast. So, I'm starting a channel on YouTube called FreedomPhilosophyTV. I'll be covering some popular topics and topical events. Recently I've been talking about the military and law in a free society. Please tune in and support me, constructive feedback is welcome. My first 3 programs are right here. [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmJOxiaNVh0] [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2Ne_c6Oe-g] [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBHgaTNuZmY]