Honking horn violation of NAP?

[fractional slacker]

Is honking the horn an act of aggression? 
I observe this almost daily, that someone will use their horn as a weapon of anger rather than a means to avoid an accident. The former being aggression and wrong and the latter being useful and good.

Another way of looking at this issue is to compare it to shouting. Shouting at someone without provocation is aggression, while shouting at someone to alert them of danger is courageous.

 

My question is if someone uses their horn to be aggressive with you, what, if any, aggression is acceptable as a defensive measure?

[dsayers]

I have sensitive hearing. Loudness is like nails on a chalkboard to me. So I struggled with the morality of noise pollution due to my strong bias.

 

However, it became clearer to me when I thought of it in terms of being binding upon another person. If your neighbors sell crack, you might not like it, but it doesn't directly effect you. If they sunbathe in the nude in the backyard, you can look away. If however they're yelling and screaming at each other (or honking their horn), you can't not hear this. It is binding upon you and therefore the initiation of the use of force.

 

Many caveats of course. In the suburbs you'll have lawnmowers in the summer and nail guns when somebody's fixing their roofs, etc. On the road, there are engines and horns when used for commanding attention for safety purposes. Otherwise, yes, I'd say the use of a horn as an ideological weapon is the initiation of the use of force.

 

As for defensive measures, there's next to none in a statist society. In fact, were you to take any action whatsoever, society would label you as having engaged in road rage despite it being the opposite of the truth.

 

What do you think of this summary?

[shirgall]

If someone is a boisterous ass in a venue you are in, the trick is to convince them to be quiet or to leave. On the road, however, there is no useful method of communication other than the horn and signals on your vehicle. Unfortunately this means training your kids and friends to be courteous drivers is the long term solution. I got a lot of empathy for truck drivers, for example, just because my Dad used to drive me across the country to stay at my grandparents' house for the summer and I observed the difference between courteous drivers and their less stressed long haul driving and the stereotypical rush hour commuter.

[BD91]

I think people CAN use the car horn as an outlet of aggression, but I think it is almost always a reactionary to the perception of an initiation of force (i.e. getting cutoff in your lane, near-misses, no turn signal etc...) where the person honking may feel they were put in harms way when the driver of the other car may have thought they were in the clear.

 

And, not to take the thread off course, but Dsayers, I don't have any specific facts to back this; but, I'm willing to bet that someone selling crack next door would invite criminality & violence into the neighborhood which very much does affect it directly.

[coffeebean81387]

If the extent of their aggression is honking the horn then I'm not sure any aggressive defensive actions necessarily need to be taken.  They honk their horn in anger and frustration then zoom out of your life, I think any further escalation would lead to further negative results for both parties and possibly innocent bystanders as well. 

[AncapFTW]

I have sensitive hearing. Loudness is like nails on a chalkboard to me. So I struggled with the morality of noise pollution due to my strong bias.

 

However, it became clearer to me when I thought of it in terms of being binding upon another person. If your neighbors sell crack, you might not like it, but it doesn't directly effect you. If they sunbathe in the nude in the backyard, you can look away. If however they're yelling and screaming at each other (or honking their horn), you can't not hear this. It is binding upon you and therefore the initiation of the use of force.

 

Many caveats of course. In the suburbs you'll have lawnmowers in the summer and nail guns when somebody's fixing their roofs, etc. On the road, there are engines and horns when used for commanding attention for safety purposes. Otherwise, yes, I'd say the use of a horn as an ideological weapon is the initiation of the use of force.

 

As for defensive measures, there's next to none in a statist society. In fact, were you to take any action whatsoever, society would label you as having engaged in road rage despite it being the opposite of the truth.

 

What do you think of this summary?

So it's their responsibility to not be offended by you violating what they perceive as their rights, but not your responsibility to put up a privacy fence so we can easily avoid it?

 

Also, I'd argue that having caveats without explaining why they are exceptions means that your way of distinguishing whether or not they are initiating force is flawed.

[dsayers]

Dsayers, I don't have any specific facts to back this; but, I'm willing to bet that someone selling crack next door would invite criminality & violence into the neighborhood which very much does affect it directly.

Do you mean that the State says selling crack is illegal and therefore to sell crack is to introduce criminality? Or are you saying that in order to pay for the crack, somebody might break into your car and steal your stereo. Because in that scenario, the breaking into the car and the stealing of the stereo are the violations of property rights, not the selling of the crack. As long as the people buying and selling the crack are free to decline, that is a voluntary action and not binding upon any 3rd party.

 

The trend I think you're referring to is actually the result of something being called illegal. Say two people offer to exchange crack for cash. Then it turns out what the buyer received wasn't crack at all. If crack is illegal, then he has no legal recourse for legitimately having been defrauded. If something is criminalized, it becomes more dangerous to engage in. Which leads to a greater need for being armed for protection/enforcement, which leads to conflicts being with higher stakes. If you go to a restaurant and they get your order wrong, you bring it up and they remake it for you and/or discount your meal. If you engage in an illegal exchange and they get your order wrong, people get hurt/killed.

 

Calling crack illegal is saying "we will aggress against you if you engage in that behavior." The very act of declaring it illegal is the initiation of the use of force.

[Anuojat]

I think honking a horn on my car it is not a violation. Because Stefans recent video.

 

 

On less cynical note:

 

I think dont be dick priniple applies her and also if someone acts within the boundarien of conveying information that is fine (like honkin horn wheh the lights green). However coming diretly to your face and yelling in your ear you have now performed differant action youre not here to use the sound as mean of hey you did or didnt do soemthing! AKA if theres something you did first or are voluntarily abiding to (like working ina factory or driving a car) however if the interaction is one where you didnt agree to aomething contractually or implicidly then it could be violation, Especially since we know human eardrum is not exactly made of strenest stuff.

 

And it is up to the person making loud noises to KNOW this fact when conveying information.

[MagnumPI]

Are we actually just talking about assertion? Honking a horn to say 'dick' or 'move your ass' or 'dont hit me', even 'oh hai jenny!' in car speak is the same word. Chalk it up to a language barrier. The act is the same regardless of intent and all cars have horns. To drive is to accept they may be used. Ditto for deafening goddamn sirens.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

I think there is a lot worse aggression that goes on government roads without prosecution, such as tailgating, dangerous lane switches, and right-lane speeding. I think the horn has defensive uses; like if someone is switching lanes and they don't see me, I can let them know I'm there. But it can be also used in road rage, which is clearly aggressive, and could even be the initiation of force if it puts you in danger. If it just pisses you off, I don't think you can say they're initiating force. Think if you're at a venue and some idiot calls you a name, compared to him repeatedly calling you names, following you around, and pushing his body very near yours - the former is a bitch, the latter is aggressive. Series of actions equivalent to the latter happen on the road all the time, and it is clearly aggressive.

 

Of course I don't see any consistent prosecution of aggressive acts on the road. I see cops parked in random places, stalking at night to get some chump who is going 15 over the speed limit without another car in sight. When the roads are packed and the mayhem is most visible, I see like one or two cops per hundred cars, and for them to stop a single person takes about 30 minutes (at least in my experience cops sit idle for about 20 minutes in the process of giving me a ticket; they're really in no hurry to get back and keep the roads safe).

 

So the problem is really the state and how it is neglecting and often times contributing to the real danger going on the roads, while they pick from one of maybe 100 or 1000 traffic violations they see daily to prosecute. 

 

And who does the restitution go to? Not the other endangered drivers, but the state! And the supposedly endangered drivers who are being protected from one of maybe 1000 traffic violations* a day have to pay for this whole purposefully lazy and retarded process that can last months before anything is done about the violation; in the mean time the perpetrator is freely driving and endangering others. Then he pays some fine to the state, and is back at it again soon, only he is more careful this time to be weary of the one or two times he'll see a cop a day, and he'll make sure to follow every law for that 20 or 30 second stretch - after all the chances of him being pulled over even if he is violating a law in front of a cop is slim.

 

So the state is completely criminal, refusing to stop danger on the roads while contributing to it, and preying on and profiting from the victims. Pure evil.

 

*(if the state is going to call them all violations, I'm going to assume it's because they're dangerous, but of course that is not the case. Still, many dangerous acts happen on the road daily and no consistent action is taken against it)

[thebeardslastcall]

This seems like a statist issue specifically. Since in a non-statist society all areas would have agreed upon rules and if someone is being a dick you're actually allowed to disassociate from them. You can get them tagged as a problematic or aggressive or excessively noisy person and society will give them an appropriate level of ostracism to encourage them to behave better. I also think people are far more prone to these aggressive and noisy behaviors because we're living in statist societies which deny justice and leave most of the population in a depressed and frustrated state more prone to lashing out in various ways.

 

I find honking cars annoying, particularly with all the damn honk-on-lock standard 'feature' of many of the newer cars. Part of me wants to take a sword and just drive it into the front of the car and kill the noisy beast when it's being excessively noisy in public. I feel violated by excessive noise in public and by smokers, but it comes with the territory since even in semi-public/private areas it's something that just has to be tolerated to a degree if you can't do anything about it. Find a more peaceful place if you can and reward businesses that have owners or strip-mall managers that will discourage such people. We still have a little bit of a monetary vote in today's society to the degree that owners still have a little bit of control over free-association that hasn't been ruled illegal discrimination (which is basically like legalized evil tolerance to my ears).

[dsayers]

Are we actually just talking about assertion? Honking a horn to say 'dick' or 'move your ass' or 'dont hit me', even 'oh hai jenny!' in car speak is the same word. Chalk it up to a language barrier. The act is the same regardless of intent and all cars have horns. To drive is to accept they may be used. Ditto for deafening goddamn sirens.

I don't think car horns is the issue. The underlying question is: Is noise pollution immoral?

[WasatchMan]

Would you think it right to shoot someone for improperly using a horn? I don't think so, therefore most likely not a violation of the NAP - just APA.

[thebeardslastcall]

Would you think it right to shoot someone for improperly using a horn? I don't think so, therefore most likely not a violation of the NAP - just APA.

 

I would disagree a bit, perhaps, if you weren't talking selectively about most car horns. As a horn or other sounds are physical in effect, you can deafen someone with a horn blast to the ear. So I would clarify your statement to say if it's up to a certain threshold it's APA, but if it exceeds that threshold it could rightly be considered a physical attack. Basically beyond the threshold it becomes a sonic weapon which can damage you. It's like the difference between hitting someone with a weak flashlight, which might be annoying, but not too harmful, and a concentrated or UVA light which can burn or blind you.

 

I think in a stateless society people would have the means and reasons necessary to establish acceptable noise pollution levels as well so they could be friendly neighbors. If you want to play loud music for example you would need to take the necessary precautions to contain the noise from your neighbors or in an unfriendly area where people couldn't come to terms people would be more inclined to put up sound walls to guard from 'noisy' neighbors (which is distinct from sonic blasting neighbors who you might rightly attack back). Degrees with these things matter, like the difference between creating a light breeze and a gust of wind capable of knocking over trees and buildings.

[dsayers]

Would you think it right to shoot someone for improperly using a horn? I don't think so, therefore most likely not a violation of the NAP - just APA.

So if somebody steals your pencil, it's not immoral because you wouldn't shoot them over it? Or is it perhaps that whether or not you'd shoot somebody isn't the measure of what is a violation of property rights?

 

For those having a hard time separating their bias of having adjusted to the sounds around them, here's an example of how noise pollution and infrasound waves can effect moral actors without their consent:

 

 

TL;DW: LRAD is a (sub)sonic gun that doesn't rely on ammo and could seize your body without your knowledge of its presence.

[MagnumPI]

I don't think car horns is the issue. The underlying question is: Is noise pollution immoral?

 

The question was specific, thankfully, so I don't need to read into underlying issues. Remove the obscurity, and you remove the problem.

 

If the question regards noise pollution, start defining terms. Then quantify, qualify, reapply to a specific, workable scenario. We'll end up right back at the initial question, and the problem... Solved itself.

 

A tangent was provided revolving around shouting. But that's a separate act, which would be fleshed out thusly, and a more complex analysis would be necessary. Yelling is both an old guy who can't hear, and the fat black lady on the bus t'ombout my muddafukkin baybee daddy owe me some got-deamm re-ent. So even it requires further deliberation.

 

But then crows (particularly while mating) are noisy, does that qualify as pollution? And how can you apply morality to horny crows? On and on. This is pointless, and if that's what the topic was intended to be, I'm sorry I participated.

 

Specifics are our friends.

[dsayers]

Remove the obscurity, and you remove the problem... Specifics are our friends.

Like theft is immoral, but taxation is not because it's a specific kind of theft? Inefficiency is a type of obscurity. I thought I was removing the obscurity. We could consider every instance of theft (or noise pollution), or we could consider the entirety of theft or noise pollution since instances aren't fundamentally different. Is a car horn honk not a subset of noise? If noise pollution is binding upon others without their consent, how is a car horn honk then not binding upon others or suddenly with consent where none was given?

 

I've already addressed that context is necessary. If you're driving down the road and somebody jumps in front of your car, it's reasonable to expect that if they could consent to your horn, they would. Is this the same as somebody using it to realize harm against you in a way that is consequence free? Clearly not.

 

Not sure where crows come in, given they're not moral actors as they're not able to conceptualize ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, calculate consequences, etc.

[MagnumPI]

Like theft is immoral, but taxation is not because it's a specific kind of theft? Inefficiency is a type of obscurity. I thought I was removing the obscurity. We could consider every instance of theft (or noise pollution), or we could consider the entirety of theft or noise pollution since instances aren't fundamentally different. Is a car horn honk not a subset of noise? If noise pollution is binding upon others without their consent, how is a car horn honk then not binding upon others or suddenly with consent where none was given?

 

I've already addressed that context is necessary. If you're driving down the road and somebody jumps in front of your car, it's reasonable to expect that if they could consent to your horn, they would. Is this the same as somebody using it to realize harm against you in a way that is consequence free? Clearly not.

 

Not sure where crows come in, given they're not moral actors as they're not able to conceptualize ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, calculate consequences, etc.

Noise pollution: Undefined. More unassociated links are being made, however. Theft is not sound. Sound is not pollution. Sound exists whether a moral agent makes it or not. Strawmen have also entered the room...

[dsayers]

Theft is not sound... Strawmen have also entered the room...

I see that. This is one example, on top of calling clarification obfuscation and asserting that specifics within a set are fundamentally different than their set. Are you interested in having a discussion to find out what the truth is?

 

Pollution is introducing harmful agents into the environment. Noise pollution therefore would be doing this by way of sound.

 

Sound is not pollution. Sound exists whether a moral agent makes it or not.

This is begging the question. Neither of these statements does anything to cast doubt on whether or not sound can be used to create pollution and/or be used in an immoral fashion. You acknowledged obfuscation isn't helpful, so let's remove it.

 

Short of asking me to define my terms, you've done nothing to address my arguments. So now it's your turn: What is the method for determining whether or not a behavior is immoral? I put forth my definition of this and this seems to be the point of contention.

[MagnumPI]

This is begging the question. Neither of these statements does anything to cast doubt on whether or not sound can be used to create pollution and/or be used in an immoral fashion. You acknowledged obfuscation isn't helpful, so let's remove it.

It wasn't begging the question, before you defined noise pollution. It was a statement following:

Is a car horn honk not a subset of noise?

 

Unqualified, noise is just sound.

 

UPB I believe is an acceptable measure. And I hit that in my initial comment in that whilst driving, or being on or near the road, nobody assumes not to hear a car horn, regardless the intent.

 

And particularly if that's all your definition entails. Because non-moral agents introduce harmful sound to the environment. So, introducing harmful sound into the environment cannot be immoral in that both moral agents and non-moral agents produce it.

[WasatchMan]

I would disagree a bit, perhaps, if you weren't talking selectively about most car horns. As a horn or other sounds are physical in effect, you can deafen someone with a horn blast to the ear. So I would clarify your statement to say if it's up to a certain threshold it's APA, but if it exceeds that threshold it could rightly be considered a physical attack. Basically beyond the threshold it becomes a sonic weapon which can damage you. It's like the difference between hitting someone with a weak flashlight, which might be annoying, but not too harmful, and a concentrated or UVA light which can burn or blind you.

 

Agreed.

 

So if somebody steals your pencil, it's not immoral because you wouldn't shoot them over it? Or is it perhaps that whether or not you'd shoot somebody isn't the measure of what is a violation of property rights?

 

UPB:

 

Aesthetically positive actions (APAs) are universally preferable, but not enforceable through violence, since aesthetically negative actions do not initiate the use of force.

[dsayers]

UPB I believe is an acceptable measure.

I don't know how "UPB" compares to "voluntary behavior that is binding upon another moral actor without their consent." As such, I cannot ascertain if we've agreed upon a method for determining what the truth is regarding ethical considerations.

 

whilst driving, or being on or near the road, nobody assumes not to hear a car horn, regardless the intent.

I reject your claim that consent can be implicit. It is not reasonable to assume that if a driver could give consent to the use of a car horn for the purpose of harming somebody, they would.

 

Because non-moral agents introduce harmful sound to the environment. So, introducing harmful sound into the environment cannot be immoral in that both moral agents and non-moral agents produce it.

Again, "Not sure where crows come in, given they're not moral actors as they're not able to conceptualize ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, calculate consequences, etc." This quote of yours here does nothing to address this challenge, but only serves to re-assert your position despite the challenge offered to it. I reject that what a being who lacks the capacity for reason and therefore lacks self-ownership does is any measure of what is moral discourse for those that do. Using the standard you've put forth here, anybody can waltz onto your property and run off with anything they can carry because hey, non-moral agents do that too.

 

@Wasatchman: You've moved the goalposts. At first, you spoke of shooting people. Then you changed it to "enforceable through violence." While imprecise, one thing that is clear is that shooting somebody is not the only way to enforce something. Don't forget that one of the wonderful parts of objective morality is that we understand that the violator has created a debt; has consented to property rights being proportionately violated (force).

[Agalloch]

Nobody is even close to the point, nearly everything said here is irrelevant. It'd be easier to see if you'd put things into a realistic context.

 

The only thing that matters is, who owns the road, and are their rules for use of the horn being followed

 

Nearly everything is so much simpler when you stop generalising about unrealistic scenario is without property rights and throe some actual volu.tary human interaction in there.

 

The answer is, UPB has nothing to say about Amy situation where property is ignored.

[Des]

I think there is a lot worse aggression that goes on government roads without prosecution, such as tailgating, dangerous lane switches, and right-lane speeding. I think the horn has defensive uses; like if someone is switching lanes and they don't see me, I can let them know I'm there. But it can be also used in road rage, which is clearly aggressive, and could even be the initiation of force if it puts you in danger. If it just pisses you off, I don't think you can say they're initiating force. Think if you're at a venue and some idiot calls you a name, compared to him repeatedly calling you names, following you around, and pushing his body very near yours - the former is a bitch, the latter is aggressive. Series of actions equivalent to the latter happen on the road all the time, and it is clearly aggressive.

 

Of course I don't see any consistent prosecution of aggressive acts on the road. I see cops parked in random places, stalking at night to get some chump who is going 15 over the speed limit without another car in sight. When the roads are packed and the mayhem is most visible, I see like one or two cops per hundred cars, and for them to stop a single person takes about 30 minutes (at least in my experience cops sit idle for about 20 minutes in the process of giving me a ticket; they're really in no hurry to get back and keep the roads safe).

 

So the problem is really the state and how it is neglecting and often times contributing to the real danger going on the roads, while they pick from one of maybe 100 or 1000 traffic violations they see daily to prosecute. 

 

And who does the restitution go to? Not the other endangered drivers, but the state! And the supposedly endangered drivers who are being protected from one of maybe 1000 traffic violations* a day have to pay for this whole purposefully lazy and retarded process that can last months before anything is done about the violation; in the mean time the perpetrator is freely driving and endangering others. Then he pays some fine to the state, and is back at it again soon, only he is more careful this time to be weary of the one or two times he'll see a cop a day, and he'll make sure to follow every law for that 20 or 30 second stretch - after all the chances of him being pulled over even if he is violating a law in front of a cop is slim.

 

So the state is completely criminal, refusing to stop danger on the roads while contributing to it, and preying on and profiting from the victims. Pure evil.

 

*(if the state is going to call them all violations, I'm going to assume it's because they're dangerous, but of course that is not the case. Still, many dangerous acts happen on the road daily and no consistent action is taken against it)

A private road owner would have each driver's reputation from a reputation agency, and keep dangerous drivers off his roads, to boost the revenue from advertising to the larger number of safe drivers on the road (accidents are bad for business, because competitors may offer a quicker, safer commute), and advertisers pay more to be seen by more eyes.

[MagnumPI]

I don't know how "UPB" compares to "voluntary behavior that is binding upon another moral actor without their consent." As such, I cannot ascertain if we've agreed upon a method for determining what the truth is regarding ethical considerations.

 

I reject your claim that consent can be implicit. It is not reasonable to assume that if a driver could give consent to the use of a car horn for the purpose of harming somebody, they would.

 

Again, "Not sure where crows come in, given they're not moral actors as they're not able to conceptualize ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, calculate consequences, etc." This quote of yours here does nothing to address this challenge, but only serves to re-assert your position despite the challenge offered to it. I reject that what a being who lacks the capacity for reason and therefore lacks self-ownership does is any measure of what is moral discourse for those that do. Using the standard you've put forth here, anybody can waltz onto your property and run off with anything they can carry because hey, non-moral agents do that too.

Binding upon someone is not injurious. A billboard displays a messages, creates a thought. Immoral? No, just the reality of existence.

 

So now we're talking about people intentionally causing harm? I thought we were talking about the introduction of harmful sound into the environment? Your definition is imprecise.

 

And again, pulling a bad analogy in. A raccoon digging in my trash isn't theft, or stealing. Noise pollution as you defined it did not require any moral agency to exist. It doesn't even require that anyone is actually harmed. Pollution could include beaver dams.

But it's obvious that you're very emotional about loud noises, in order to qualify a car horn as harmful, one would have to show damage and you've practically insulted every board member with this insinuation about bias. So, that's my piece.

Nobody is even close to the point, nearly everything said here is irrelevant. It'd be easier to see if you'd put things into a realistic context.

 

The only thing that matters is, who owns the road, and are their rules for use of the horn being followed

 

Nearly everything is so much simpler when you stop generalising about unrealistic scenario is without property rights and throe some actual volu.tary human interaction in there.

 

The answer is, UPB has nothing to say about Amy situation where property is ignored.

 

Cars are property...

[AncapFTW]

Nobody is even close to the point, nearly everything said here is irrelevant. It'd be easier to see if you'd put things into a realistic context.

 

The only thing that matters is, who owns the road, and are their rules for use of the horn being followed

 

Nearly everything is so much simpler when you stop generalising about unrealistic scenario is without property rights and throe some actual volu.tary human interaction in there.

 

The answer is, UPB has nothing to say about Amy situation where property is ignored.

I don't agree with this.  The owner's rules only alter the rights of the individual where the person agreed to have their rights altered.  They don't replace the rights of the individual.  A property owner doesn't need to list a law unless it is important to the owner of that property and not a general rule.

 

To put it another way, the mall doesn't have to put "no rape allowed" signs up because rape is automatically assumed to be against the rights of the individual.  Neither do they have to post signs saying "mall security has the right to apprehend you if we have evidence you stole from one of the mall's vendors".  If the rules alter the established rules of society somehow, say that the mall owner is Jewish so no pork is allowed in the mall, then a rule does need to be posted.

 

Property rights do exist in the other answers, only it is the rights of a person to not be assaulted that is being discussed, and how far that extends.

 

 

Binding upon someone is not injurious. A billboard displays a messages, creates a thought. Immoral? No, just the reality of existence.

 

So now we're talking about people intentionally causing harm? I thought we were talking about the introduction of harmful sound into the environment? Your definition is imprecise.

 

And again, pulling a bad analogy in. A raccoon digging in my trash isn't theft, or stealing. Noise pollution as you defined it did not require any moral agency to exist. It doesn't even require that anyone is actually harmed. Pollution could include beaver dams.

But it's obvious that you're very emotional about loud noises, in order to qualify a car horn as harmful, one would have to show damage and you've practically insulted every board member with this insinuation about bias. So, that's my piece.

That's one thing that never made sense to me, that some people define "violence" as "binding upon me, against my will".  If I refuse you service, I'm not being violent, but it is against your will and is binding upon you.

[dsayers]

The only thing that matters is, who owns the road, and are their rules for use of the horn being followed

Since nobody owns the roads in a statist society, it's not the only thing that matters.

 

That's one thing that never made sense to me, that some people define "violence" as "binding upon me, against my will".  If I refuse you service, I'm not being violent, but it is against your will and is binding upon you.

You cannot use active language to refer to inactivity. Nor can you ethically propose an unchosen positive obligation. So person A is neither obligated to interact with person B nor doing anything to them while not interacting.

 

But it's obvious that you're very emotional about loud noises, in order to qualify a car horn as harmful, one would have to show damage and you've practically insulted every board member with this insinuation about bias. So, that's my piece.

It's begging the question to approach whether or not noise can be harmful as if noise cannot be harmful. "Insulted" is yet another non-standard YOU have introduced. Trying to speak for "every board member" is equally lacking in integrity. Something somebody who was motivated by emotion and not rational arguments might do.

 

Saying binding upon somebody is not injurious is to assert that people do not own themselves, which is false. Billboards are not binding upon people as evidenced by how many of them you're NOT partaking of right now. Whereas if I was honking my horn for no reason other than to harm others within earshot of you, you coudln't NOT hear it. Hence binding upon you, and you DO own your ears.

 

And again, pulling a bad analogy in. A raccoon digging in my trash isn't theft, or stealing. Noise pollution as you defined it did not require any moral agency to exist. It doesn't even require that anyone is actually harmed. Pollution could include beaver dams.

I wish you could leave the absurd behind. A raccoon digging in your trash isn't theft, stealing, or trespassing because a raccoon has no moral agency. Do you agree? Were a human to do the same thing, it would be. Do you agree? If you reject self-ownership, say so. This is the 3rd time I've pointed out that you cannot use those without moral agency to derive morality. If you reject this claim, confront it. Don't just repeat animals.

 

And yes, in the context of you owned a hydroplant and beavers built a dam that reduced flow, that would be pollution, you would treat them as pests, and you would intervene to rectify the situation. Not at all relevant though since beavers are not moral actors. I only respond to draw attention to the fact that you put forth "pollution could include beaver dams" not as a rational argument, but to solicit an emotional response by introducing a strawman.

 

I don't agree with this.  The owner's rules only alter the rights of the individual where the person agreed to have their rights altered.  They don't replace the rights of the individual.

This was my initial reaction to. After thinking about it though, he's fundamentally right. Imagine a club that had a rule for entry that rape is allowed. By voluntarily entering, you are agreeing to that condition. Making it no longer possible to rape since both parties have consented. If my theory that noise pollution is immoral holds, a private road that had the condition for use that horns, loud music, peeling tires, screaming, etc was all allowed, then by using that road, I am providing consent, removing the possibility of it being binding upon me without my consent.

[MagnumPI]

Show objectively damage results from the sound of a cars horn. When you can't... Thats why ignore.

[AccuTron]

"... Because non-moral agents introduce harmful sound to the environment. So, introducing harmful sound into the environment cannot be immoral in that both moral agents and non-moral agents produce it."

 

A tornado plunges a stick thru my body, that's a non-moral agent; an archer plunges a stick with feathers thru my body, that is a moral agent.  The question is whether the introducer is aware of the harm; that makes them either a tornado or an archer.

[thebeardslastcall]

 

A tornado plunges a stick thru my body, that's a non-moral agent; an archer plunges a stick with feathers thru my body, that is a moral agent.  The question is whether the introducer is aware of the harm; that makes them either a tornado or an archer.

 

 

Made me think of this Ali quote: 

[MagnumPI]

 

"... Because non-moral agents introduce harmful sound to the environment. So, introducing harmful sound into the environment cannot be immoral in that both moral agents and non-moral agents produce it."

 

A tornado plunges a stick thru my body, that's a non-moral agent; an archer plunges a stick with feathers thru my body, that is a moral agent.  The question is whether the introducer is aware of the harm; that makes them either a tornado or an archer.

 

I would argue that those scenarios would require two different questions. One regarding weather, and another regarding murder.

 

But again, car horns are not arrows. A person intentionally damaging another person's hearing, or doing so by means of negligence, is one act which may make use of a tool called a 'car horn'. Or jack hammer. Or firecracker.

 

The imposition of audio to anyone within earshot, without qualification, is just making sounds. Car horns are not demon, succubus, siren screeches at any range. You can not show damage if someone behind you honks at you, unless there's some silly story like he put a foghorn on, but that's something different again. It is not a weapon, just because you hear it.

[dsayers]

It is not a weapon, just because you hear it.

Because people own themselves, but not their ears? Not the first time this challenge has been offered.

 

The person engaging in the behavior (as with any immoral behavior) is unambiguously telling you that it's a weapon.

[luxfelix]

Aha! Here's a thread I can certainly contribute to. 

 

As described previously, there is a health risk involved with noise pollution (be it sustained duration, very loud burst, or even discordant content in and of itself).

 

It might be considered in a manner akin to tobacco smoke.

[Agalloch]

Since nobody owns the roads in a statist society, it's not the only thing that matters.

Wrong. It's not that they are just unowned, its that the state uses force to prevent ownership. That's immoral, therefore you can't use UPB or any other useful or correct methodology for detening morality.

 

If I hold a gun to your head and say kill someone, whatever choice you make is neither moral nor immoral. It's the same here, the state is holding g a gun to drivers heads, so whether thinking a horn us immoral or not is not only irrelevant, its unknowable.

[dsayers]

Wrong. It's not that they are just unowned, its that the state uses force to prevent ownership. That's immoral, therefore you can't use UPB or any other useful or correct methodology for detening morality.

 

If I hold a gun to your head and say kill someone, whatever choice you make is neither moral nor immoral. It's the same here, the state is holding g a gun to drivers heads, so whether thinking a horn us immoral or not is not only irrelevant, its unknowable.

This is one of the reasons why I pointed out that the way to answer the question is to address whether or not noise pollution is immoral. Less obfuscation.

 

Yes the state owns the roads and uses force to artificially cull would-be competition. However, the gun pointed at our heads in this regard is NOT saying "create excessive noise or we'll hurt you." As such, the creation of excessive noise is voluntary.

 

I further emphasize my rejection of your claim that it is unknowable. If you point to somebody with a gun to their head being commanded to sexually penetrate somebody against their will, you can't say the morality of rape is unknowable. We use logic, reason, and evidence to determine that in a vacuum (no coercion), rape is in fact immoral. Because it is binding upon another without their consent (the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights), just like noise pollution.