Can freedom ever cause others to lose their freedom? Outside the realm of direct harm, can anything I do take away your freedom? This seems to be a reoccuring theme in arguements with libretarians, and I was wondering if I could get a direct answer. It seems natural to me that freedom would have a somewhat paradoxical nature, but I can't nail down any specific instances where we'd be able to see this. Does anyone else have any such examples?
Freedom Infringing Freedom
- Thread starter Otther
- Start date
-
- Tags
- freedom infringing
Depends what you mean by freedom of course, but it seems self evident that freedom must be qualified in some way and that the freedom of one can harm the freedom of others.
An ancient example. I establish a lead smelter on my property, the smoke drifts over on the prevailing winds and lands on your property. The smoke contains enough lead to poison your cattle.
So the exercise of my freedom to use my property as I see fit prevents you using your property as you see fit. At this point the state has to step in and decide which of these conflicting freedoms should prevail.
On a much more complex level you and the media magnate Rupert Murdoch have the same freedom of expression but he can prevent you expressing your views in his extensive media interests thus dramatically reducing your freedom of expression. Ditto a large retailer like Wal-Mart makes demands on the editorial content of the magazines it sells. Freedom of expression is again limited.
An ancient example. I establish a lead smelter on my property, the smoke drifts over on the prevailing winds and lands on your property. The smoke contains enough lead to poison your cattle.
So the exercise of my freedom to use my property as I see fit prevents you using your property as you see fit. At this point the state has to step in and decide which of these conflicting freedoms should prevail.
On a much more complex level you and the media magnate Rupert Murdoch have the same freedom of expression but he can prevent you expressing your views in his extensive media interests thus dramatically reducing your freedom of expression. Ditto a large retailer like Wal-Mart makes demands on the editorial content of the magazines it sells. Freedom of expression is again limited.
billydkid
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Messages
- 4,917
Otther said:
Implicit in the libertarian notion of freedom is that a right can not legitimately be considered a right if it interferes with the rights of others. I have heard those from both the left and the right argue in some instances that libertarians want to interfere with their "right" dicate the "values" of their community or society. Somehow, some people are able to seriously argue that libertarians are interfering with their rights by opposing their wish to control the behavior of others. The left might argue, for example, that the libertarian support for gun rights interferes with their "right" to live in a safe society.
The right might argue that libertarians absolute support of the first amendment interferes with their right choose the values for their community. Libertarians would argue that you have the right to do whatever you want with your real estate property as long as you are not harming others or the property of others. This becomes a grey area for many. Some would argue that by having junk cars on blocks and not mowing your lawn interferes with their property rights by diminishing its value. I think there is no particular right to maintain your property value per se', but this is the sort of thing about which people might argue.
Essentially, I can not see where any legitimate right would ever interfere with the legitimate rights of another.
The most immediate example I can come up with is the Great Abortion Debate:Otther said:
A woman has the right to her own body, an unborn person has the right to life. These two conflicting forms of self-determination have provided lots of debateable material over the past few decades.
crimresearch
Alumbrado
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 10,600
Which would mean that such a narrow definition of 'legitimate rights' doesn't address the question.
'Freedom' implies lack of such restrictions.
And in the real world, freedom without limits can and will impinge upon othr freedoms, since some things cannot co-exist...
For example, the freedom to enjoy silence, and the freedom to make noise.
Where such conflicts exist, we may talk about 'legitimate rights' in the context of dealing with the conflict.
Otther said:
Nope. If there's ever an ambiguity, just ask: who owns the property?
Example: non-smokers say that smoking inhibits their "right" to breathe clean air, and so they go and lobby the government to ban smoking in bars and restaurants. The smokers say that's infringing on their "right" to smoke and so they fight the legislation.
So, whose freedom wins out? Is this a case of two freedoms conflicting? Well, ask the question: who owns the property, and you'll see the answer.
The restaurant owner is the one with the rights here. The legislation is a violation of his rights to allow smoking in his establishment if he so chooses. However, he no more infringes on the rights of smokers by banning smoking in his own restaurant than he is infringing on the rights of smokers by allowing it. It's his property, it's his restaurant, so it's his rights and his decision.
Nikk said:
Except you aren't just "using your property as you see fit." You're going beyond that and causing damage to your neighbor's property. And you don't have the right to do that.
Your freedom of expression does not obligate anyone else to provide you with a medium for that expression. It stops the government from infringing on it.
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
Okay let's do exactly that. Who owns the air in the restaurant?
Does the restaurant owner? People come in with their coats and bags and those don't become the restaurant owner's property, so the mere presence of a thing inside the restaurant does not mean that thing also becomes the restaurant owner's property.
When restaurant owner bought the restaurant, there probably wasn't something in the contract saying "...and all the air inside it", so his ownership of the air is not based on a contract.
When the restaurant owner opens a few windows to remove the smoke from the guests of the previous night, he doesn't pay for the new fresh air coming in and neither does he pay for the desposal of the the old air.
If all that is needed to solve the problem is to ask who owns the thing that is poluted, we need to ask the owner of the air, not the owner of the restaurant. So who is it? Who owns the air?
Earthborn said:
The restaurant owner would have to own that air. There is no other entity that could properly be said to own the air.
Of course once that air leaves the owner's property and becomes someone else's air or it enters into public space it would be acceptable to sanction the previous owner if he damaged the air quality. In this way we sanction polluters.
In the case of cigarette smoke though, I would think it would fall into the same category as those who pollute the air by farting in public or those who go out in public with the flu. It's one of those types of damage everyone simply has to accept as a byproduct of human use of air. The damage is not permanent. In the case of the cigarette smoke laden air once it mixes with the outside air it quickly disperses and becomes no risk to anyone within seconds.
The only place the air quality is of legitimate concern is inside the restaurant while smoking is taking place. Anyone entering the premises of a smoking allowed restaraunt accepts the risk of breathing such air.
I do think the anti smoking laws are a good example of our system of rights being reduced to near meaninglessness. Suddenly the perceived (but nonexistent) right of some to eat in their nonsmoking restaraunt of choice trumps the real right of a property owner to determine whether guests may smoke or not.
As to the question of real rights conflicting with other real rights, this happens all the time, but it seems more common that perceived rights conflict with real rights more often.
For my example of real rights conflicting with each other I would cite divorce laws. In some cases all assets are split 50/50 by the court regardless of need or contribution and neither spouse has any say in whether the house must be sold or not. Custody decisions favoring one parent against the wishes of the other, etc. Divorce laws are rife with examples of pitting one person's rights against that of another as it relates to property.
Earthborn said:
Nonsense. This is a huge misunderstanding.
Basically, property rights can be interpreted as rules that tell people what they may not do.
Consider the following three rules:
1. If a piece of land (house, construction etc.) is designated as mine, I and only I decide what I am allowed to do when on it and what you are allowed to do when on it. If you have a problem with that, don't come. I couldn't care any less if you're Kant and the only place in the world where you can write your masterpiece is my property. If I don't want you to, you don't get to do it. What you want doesn't matter, as long as you're on my land.
2. The same goes for any physical object (including my body). If I own it, I and only I decide what it will be done to it by me or another.
3. You are not allowed to keep people from leaving your property, if they have followed the rules.
Now let's apply the rules to your example: I have a restaurant and you, my client, decide to smoke. If I (for ANY reason whatsoever, including insanity, hate, whim etc) decide you are not allowed to do it, you must stop or leave - rule no.1(please notice how I completely disregard the damage done to the air; of course, if somebody owned the air and he wouldn't like smoke, you, the smoker, would have a serious problem). If another client dies because of your smoking, then you have broken rule no. 2 (tough to prove that, though). Rule no. 1 also tells you nobody except yourself may decide with regard to allowing people to smoke in your restaurant.
Ownership of the air is as relevant in this case as is ownership of the smoke, or the ownership of the stars above your head.
Tudor said:
Your objection to examining the ownership of the air as being irrelevant would seem to make all laws regarding air pollution invalid.
Any shared resource such as air or water is relevant if it can be shown that one's use of the shared resource is being unduly harmed by another without any right to do so.
If we replace with cigarette smoke with factory smoke would the ownership of the air be equally irrelevant? If we replace factory smoke with a terrorist releasing a toxic gas into the air would it be just as irrelevant? Ultimately what is done to the air is not subject to the whim of the person who owns the property the air is above unless the owner of the property can ensure that the air leaving the property is just as undamged as it was upon entering it. In the case of cigarette smoke I think that case can be made, but I still think ownership of the air is a subject too important to casually dismiss without justification.
username said:
Exactly. But they would be replaced with something much more appropiate.
See my number (2) rule from the first post. Does pollution from your factory harm my body (because I breathe the polluted air and so on)? Then you should be tried in a court of law like any other person who harms my body without my consent (think for instance of a person who jumps near your food while carying a bucket full of poison; the person accidentally drops some poison in your food and doesn't tell you about it, even though he or she noticed it; you eat the food and you fell mortally ill; do you think the person who did that should just pay a fine?).
Does pollution from your factory alters my water (the lake on my land etc)? Then you're damaging my property and you should be tried in a court of law just like the person who destroyed my car.
Again, I emphasize the role of the second rule stated in my previous post, the rule regarding property rights that apply to physical objects (including our bodies).
In order to be more rigorous, one would need some more rules covering what happens when the other three rules are broken. That is necessary in order to avoid possible objections with respect to the breaking of the first three rules that occurs whenever someone tries to enforce the first three rules. This, however, is just a detail.
username said:
I almost missed this. I never dismiss anything without justification (nor do I accept something without justification - if one understands justification to include corroboration, or negative results of falsification). Not only that, but I am trying to be as precise and clear as possible.
Read the post you quoted from more attentively (especially the second rule and what is written between parantheses).
billydkid
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Messages
- 4,917
No
I have to disagree with some of the others here. No, you do not have the right to interfere with the quality of life of another person on their own property. By blasting music one is specifically interfering with anothers pursuit of happiness. Noise polution/air polution - same difference.
sorgoth said:
I have to disagree with some of the others here. No, you do not have the right to interfere with the quality of life of another person on their own property. By blasting music one is specifically interfering with anothers pursuit of happiness. Noise polution/air polution - same difference.
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
Re: Re: Freedom Infringing Freedom
What about in a public park? Both parties "own" that.
And try answering without having a hissy fit.
shanek said:
What about in a public park? Both parties "own" that.
And try answering without having a hissy fit.
Otther said:
Let me get this straight: does the neighbour own the value of his house (by value I think you mean market price)? Because what I said was "unless you damage something that is mine".
But enough games.
The point to notice is this: you seem to seek a rule that assigns duties and obligations (or rights, if you prefer) in a way that meets your complete approval. That is, if you can theoretically construct a problematic case where the rule applies in a way that disturbs you, that rule is rejected. The problem with that method is that no rule will ever meet your complete approval in this way.
What one needs to do is compare how different moral rules fare when confronted with problematic cases and then chose one.
I readily admit it may be very unpleasant for five guys out of one hundred thousand to have disturbed neighbours, and I admit this might be a price to pay for having laws firmly grounded upon property rights. But is much more unpleasant, in my view, to have everybody pay (in money and suffering) for the extraordinary large legal bureaucracy needed to (mis)manage the incredibly complex systems of laws and regulations in place today, not to mention the dangers of it getting out of control.