Nick900 Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 I'm not talking about the big things like murder which you can easily justify as self defense, but the smaller little things like playing Marilyn Manson music all night long in the middle of a residential neighborhood? If the emo guy owns the land and doesn't agree to keep the music down, how to you get him to stop? How can you justify enforcing rules on others that they don't agree to when common sense suggests something should be able to be done? (e.g., sending the cops around to smash the radio apart) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncapFTW Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 I'm not talking about the big things like murder which you can easily justify as self defense, but the smaller little things like playing Marilyn Manson music all night long in the middle of a residential neighborhood? If the emo guy owns the land and doesn't agree to keep the music down, how to you get him to stop? Either: 1) He agreed to the rule before moving into the area, in which case it's a contract violation. or 2) He didn't agree to it, so you would have to sue him and prove that he's costing you something/devaluing your property/etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csekavec Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 Can't enforce anything that isn't a violation of property rights or based on prior agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 I'm not talking about the big things like murder which you can easily justify as self defense, but the smaller little things like playing Marilyn Manson music all night long in the middle of a residential neighborhood? If the emo guy owns the land and doesn't agree to keep the music down, how to you get him to stop? How can you justify enforcing rules on others that they don't agree to when common sense suggests something should be able to be done? (e.g., sending the cops around to smash the radio apart) Are these the only details we get. Guy playing loud music in a residential neighborhood? Are we supposed to form a correct ethical answer from THAT? How the hell would we know if you don't even tell us the basic? Here's a question for you. Bob has a bunch of apples. Susan has a load of bananas. How many oranges does their friend Dave have? You can do math, right? So answer THAT one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRobin Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 I think it's rather simple in principle. If you use air pressure (sound) to influence and impact other people's organs(ears) that's fundamentally no different from using other ways of force on other people's bodies. And while most of the time you're voluntarily on shared ground, where this behaviour is mutually accepted, you can reasonably draw a limit in your private space if you want. Plus the fact, that if you don't get sleep it does harm your health, thus can be viewed as an NAP violation anyway, so self defense is justified in that instance (imo).Now, in any practical sense, I never rented a room or flat, where there were not clear rules for how loud one can be and at what times, so there's already an easy way to avoid such behaviour, by informing the landlord and them having the ability to cancel the contract as a result anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaeger Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 What rule? He would have had to already enter some sort of contract with the community to not to play any music loudly after a certain time in order for there to be a rule in the first place. Absent such contract, there is no rule, so there is nothing to enforce. If there is a contract then it would state how the rule would be enforced (private security, neighborhood watch, ect ...). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 Absent such contract, there is no rule, so there is nothing to enforce. If the place had no rule against rape, would you say there's nothing to enforce? Noise pollution is the initiation of the use of force because it is binding upon others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 If the place had no rule against rape, would you say there's nothing to enforce? Noise pollution is the initiation of the use of force because it is binding upon others. Im pretty sure that noise pollution does not violate the NAP but falls under aesthetically preferable behaviour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaeger Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 Even with major violation of the NAP such as rape and murder there there would need to be some kind of contract specifying what the punishment would be, how it will be enforced. Otherwise there would be no law just mob rule. Lynchings and personal vendetta would be how things are enforced minus any contract or law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 Even with major violation of the NAP such as rape and murder there there would need to be some kind of contract specifying what the punishment would be, how it will be enforced. I think your use of the word "punishment" is poisoning the well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaeger Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 Would consequence be a better word? If so let's use that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hi there Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 Would consequence be a better word? If so let's use that one. If it's in accordance with prior agreement/contractual, let's call it a "deliverable". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts