source
One of my favorite things to do is to think about alternative ways to do things. Even if the idea seems ridiculous at first, I try to think of a way to make it work. This type of thought experiment often leads to interesting insights even if I don't actually solve my original problem. I thought I would share this process with you today with something I have been thinking about.
For starters I need to point out that I am a voluntarist, which means that I believe that in an ideal world no one should force anyone to do (or not do) anything unless they are infringing on someone else's rights. In other words, all interactions should be voluntary. In theory, this means that the government as we know it could not exist because it allows us to vote for people that get to force other people to do things against their will.
Most people, when told this, will say something like "but then how would we (fill in the blank)" or "What would prevent people from (fill in the blank)." People usually agree that this would be the ideal they just assume it is impossible and therefore, just a fairy tale that is not world pursuing. These statements, of course, don't change the fact that I think that the only truly "moral" way to do things is through voluntarism. But I do think it is important for us to try to answer these questions so that we can test them out before it is needed. Even if we can just get a little closer to living without people forcing us to do things against our will, it would be a victory to me.
This being said, today I want to focus in on a question that I haven't heard an answer that I am totally satisfied with yet. What are my legitimate rights? And how far do they extend?
For example, it is easy to say that no one should steal because they are abusing my property rights. It is easy to say that people can't put me into slavery because that would abuse my right to self ownership. But what if someone builds a giant, noisy, sludge factory right next door to my property. Are they abusing my rights? Should I be able to have a say in what my neighbor does if it affects my property.
Most volunterists would tell you that no, you do not have any say in what your neighbor does with their property. And I would tend to agree. But something about this situation doesn't seem quite right.
I will use ridiculously exaggerated examples to try to illustrate my point. Even though the scenarios might never happen, then can help us find the weaknesses in our systems.
What if your neighbors all built huge walls around your property so that very little light could get in? Technically they aren't touching your property but I would say that it is definitely harming your property. All of your plants would die! So should you be able to do anything about that?
I will emphasize that I don't really have an answer, I'm just trying to get you to think. Would it be possible for you to have a say in what your neighbors do when it effects your property directly without you infringing on their rights more than they are infringing on yours?
The key to this is everything has to be voluntary. This does mean that you could voluntarily join a community that has rules for this already in place. And I think this is probably the best solution so far, it would work pretty much how our cities and towns or HOAs (Homeowners Associations) work now. In these cases, you give up some of your rights so that the "government" can make these decisions and solve these disputes.
But we don't need a government to decide that stealing, slavery or murder is bad and that we should defend ourselves from these things. So maybe we can think of a better way to solve this type of a dispute.
I think what it comes down to is balancing your rights vs others' rights. You have the right to have a weapon but if you use it to harm someone (infringing on their right to not be harmed), you will be in the wrong.
So in our example, your neighbor has the right to do what he wants with his property, but if he is harming you or your property he is in the wrong. So I think in this case, you would be justified in "defending" your property from your neighbor.
But then where do we draw the line? In my experience, when there are grey areas, it means that our system has a fundamental flaw. It seems that usually there is a black and white if you can pin down your system good enough.
This gets tricky because there are a lot of cases where if there is any "harm" to your property, it is indirect. What if they are simply being really loud? It is harming your property by making it a less pleasant place, this could make your property value decline which you could argue is harming your property by making it worth less. But this seems a little silly in most cases. But what if it's constant noise 24-7? Where does their right to make noise end and your right to your property value begin?
What if there is a stream running through your property and your neighbor starts dumping stuff in it? It's on their property but it harms your property. And if we say that a stream is shared by everyone who owns part of the river then what about the air above our property? Do we all share that? What if someone is constantly burning things and the smoke goes into your property? Are you thinking yet?
I know that this post is a little different from my usual posts because normally I like to propose solutions to problems like these. But in this case, I do not have a good solution yet and I thought it might be interesting for you to see how my thought process goes while I am solving different problems. I also thought it might bring out some things that I hadn't heard or thought of yet.
So what do you think? What is morally ok to do with your property and what would be wrong for you to do if it affects your neighbors?