I was just woken up at 8:30am on a Saturday morning. I wasn't woken up my loud music blaring out of a SUV. I was woken up by what sounded like a power tool. So, I tried to sleep through it for 30 minutes before I had enough. It was two days after New Year's and I hadn't had a good night's sleep in a few days. I also felt for my roommate who works night and usually doesn't get to sleep until around 6am in the morning. So, I strapped on my sandals, put on some jeans, and off I went to make a friendly complaint to whoever was making the racket. Turns out I would have to go two blocks down to find the noise makers. A CCI cement truck was busy at work at a residence. So, I stood there and motioned for attention. I about 5 minutes, I got 10 seconds of the workers time. "How long?" I asked. "How long for what?" He responded. "The Noise!!" I said. He chuckled. Said that the residents should have warned the neighborhood. "But I'm from 2 blocks away." I responded. It really was loud. I'm a very heavy sleeper and usually sleep in on the weekend to 1-2pm. He shrugged. 10 more minutes for him, but another truck was on its way. That one would be here around an hour. So, I went home and looked up our city noise ordinance. I was not impressed. I was protected from 10pm-8am, or so. That's all I get. On the weekend, you can start up your chainsaw all you want after 8am.

This lead me to this article. I suppose now I can show up a monthly neighborhood meeting, complain, get some rules passed after much fuss and debate, and then bring my little rule listing over to the builder/worker next time and say, "These are the neighborhood rules. You're in violation!" This time he might not chuckle. He might laugh. Take it up with the residents, he'd say. I might go to the residents and they'd say, "Its the only time I could get with the cement company." or "I'm having a party tonight and I had to have it done by then." or "I don't give a rat's ass." The truth is, though many people tend to try to by nice to their neighbors, lots of people don't. These "neighbors" that live 2 blocks from me didn't seem to care too much about their neighbors. When I got over to their truck, I had to cover my ears. Think about their next door neighbors.
As for cars blaring their radios, there's not much you can do about cars driving by. However, if there is a repeated problem and you complain to the person and receive no result, their should be a legal means to get compliance. And I'm not speaking about walking down on Sixth Street. I'm talking about in your home in which you have the right to peace and quiet for reading, sleep, conversation, sex, etc... as expressed by the current noise ordinance about noise levels in residental neighborhoods. The rights of a person has to their music in their car should be restrained to their car. Not the neighborhood. If I started walking down the street with a boombox blasting away that rattled the windows of the houses around me, I'm not exercising my freedoms reasonably. That kind of freedom DOES impose unreasonably on others' freedoms.
Thanks,
-K

You're lost on this issue, Libertarian. The drivers of cars with mega-bass would not have the ability to irk millions of people if it were not for SOCIETY building and maintaining the streets they drive on. These clowns don't have the right to drive 100 mph down residential streets, because that would be an unreasonable threat to society (THE OWNER OF THE STREET). If one of these bass freaks bought land and built their own private street, I would be happy to defend their property rights and the right to drive down it blasting stereos.

A city is itself a collective property, and the residents of the city have "collective property rights." Your attitude only allows for the rich to band together behind walled communities. No, no, no, my friend. By living in a city, or even by driving into a city on the city's streets, you are automatically submitting to the will of a collective.

If you want absolute freedom, go out in the middle of the ocean where there are no communities.

Doc: Society doesn't build these roads. Society isn't even a tangible entity. Society is only an abstract term used to refer to a group of INDIVIDUALS acting together.

In a libertarian-oriented society, the roads would all be privately owned. Yes, that means someone with a great deal of money will buy them. No, that doesn't mean that roads will be available only to a priviliged elite that can afford them. You have to have a pretty twisted view of human nature to assume that the rich would buy roadways just to deny access to them so they can cackle wickedly in their dark, cavernous manors. My guess is that the wealthy LIKE being wealthy, and would make sure everyone still used the roads at some nominal price so they can not only pay for the roadway system, but make a decent profit.

The worst and most frightening aspect of your argument is that you assume people can't function in groups without resorting to coercion and revoking civil liberties.

Erik, "society" might not be very tangible, but city councils and tax bills are. We are not talking about political theory here, we are talking about reality, and in our reality most roads are built by governments, whether it be federal, state or local. You claim that I have a "frightening" argument, but what's really frightening is hearing the comments of booming-bass advocates (you can find dozens on the web) who say they enjoy driving through neighborhoods to irritate people. You would probably claim that these fine young people are simply enjoying freedom. In reality most of them are Nazis who would inflict far greater pains on the people they're annoying if they could. There is no high-mindedness involved in the booming-bass scene. All I see are manipulated sheep spending money on chaos. If a few random people here and there were doing this completely of their own initiative, I might respect them as unique characters following the call of freedom. But the fact that there are millions of people ALL DOING THE SAME THING shows they are not free, but instead conforming. Free people do interesting and different things. Slaves all do the same thing.

One other thing - if most roads did somehow become privately owned, I guarantee the owners would disallow booming bass noise because it would reflect badly on their road and ruin business. Most people would demand booming-bass-free roads, and the owners would oblige. It's just like if you walk into a McDonald's - McDonald's would not tolerate some clown walking in with a 100 dB boom box on his shoulder because that would drive away decent and reasonable customers.

You are defending an indefensible practice.

Doc, roads are built and maintained by governments, but that doesn't mean they should be. I recognize the reality of the situation, but feel that it could be improved by moving closer and closer toward an ideal. You do the same thing. A lot of people drive around with the volume up inordinately loud, but you want to change it because you think the situation can, and should, be improved.

Nazi means National Socialist, which is profoundly antithetical to the beliefs held by people fighting noise ordinances. A Nazi would be much more inclined to agree with you on the issue of government ownership of roads. Still, calling bass-blasters Nazis is a bit over the top, considering they've never killed anyone.

I don't think you completely understand my position. I think loud music is annoying, and I'm sure it would be banned by the owners of the roads, and that's fine. However, I'm opposed, in principle, to the idea of ownership by all and none. When everyone pays for the roads, they supposedly become everyone's, but I can't find a piece of road proportionate to how much I contributed to it, and do whatever I'd like with it, despite the fact that it's "my property." Public ownership leads to loads of contradictions and problems, making IT the indefensible practice.

I support noise bans, as long as the road is actually owned by someone, thereby establishing his right to regulate it.

Ive typed so many replies to this post, and then deleted it all before posting, both last time and this time. I think the best way to sum them up is: God I hate you Drizz. You bastard. You've single handedly made me more moderate/centre in my political leanings. Such a post as this reminds me of why I used to say 'I hate idealists'.

Ken, either you have principles and live up to them or you don't. That's all I can say on the matter. Centrists have only one true principle: all things "extreme" are bad and should be avoided. That kind of deliberate blindness is something I can't agree with and neither should you.

Doc & Kelly, I'll try to reply to your comments tomorrow.

Before you reply, Drizz, know this - I'm no centrist. I'm quite far from it, but I also usually don't choose to label myself as any type of "ist." When someone visits your "about" page, they get a litany of what you think you are. "I like this band and that band" (as if that's supposed to help us get to know you? how many million other people like all those bands - hell *I* like a lot of those bands, but you and I disagree on lots of things). "I'm this, I'm that." If you want to tag yourself with labels, that's fine, but I see it as a problem for you because your world-view is so devoted to thinking with labels, which leads to stereotyping and blind allegiances. I mean, you've already called me a "Centrist," but you're way off base. You'll go into a debate with a completely wrong idea by making that assumption. I would even predict that your first response to this would be to explain why my views *are* Centrist (but now that I've said that maybe you won't).

The world is always more complicated than one presumes when initially thinking about a problem. Let me explain my situation: quite often when a certain bar closes at 1:00am, its patrons congregate in a parking lot near my house. Inevitably one of these jerks turns up some mega-bass and the crowd continues to party, sometimes for an hour or more. I'm lucky, my house isn't as close as some are to this lot. There are a few bedrooms literally about 30 feet away from where these cretins turn on their subwoofers. So, you see, the problem presented by booming bass speakers is NOT just a simple one you can dismiss with "Oh, you only have to hear it for a few seconds as the car drives by," which seems to be the attitude of a lot of people on your side. Why don't these people who live 30 feet away go ask the bass blasters to turn it down? Because they're afraid. Because the bass-blasters are the EXTREMISTS in this world. They're more than happy to resort to extreme violence if anyone challenges them. The IDEAL world that you envision can only exist with friendly and reasonable folks, which just ain't the case. The police tell me they've been trying to deal with this problem for years. The scumbags who torment others simply have no respect for authority or the rights of others. But I suppose you admire those having no respect for law enforcement, eh? Tell you what, I'd bet anything that if YOU lived in one of these houses and couldn't get to sleep on a work night, you would suddenly change your tune. Your answer will be "why don't they move?" I'm sure some people HAVE moved. And when they sell their house they don't dare tell the buyer of this problem. Then you move in here and are rudely awakened by it. Then you have to go to the trouble of selling your house and buying a new one, which is a major stress in life. THANKS, BASS-LOVERS!

Now, take a person like me who is subjected to this crap several nights a week. I get so sick of it that when I'm driving and encounter one of your ilk and only hear it for a few seconds, the noise sends me into a rage. Pavlovian response, you see. Inconsiderate jerks end up training people to hate them. It's a recipe for disaster.

Finally, whose property is the air around us? Sound waves propogate through air. Do you have the right to manipulate the air that hundreds of other people are using? Where do YOU draw the line? Please tell me that. The air in my bedroom is moved by the people in that parking lot 100 yards away. You support that? There's an old adage: Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. How is this issue any different? Whether it be for a few seconds or for hours, booming bass noise drives other people crazy, which is a form of assault. The reaction is stress, trauma, or whatever you want to call it, similar to what happens during a physical assault. You degrade our quality of life all for a cheap thrill.

Doc, I didn't call you a centrist. I called Ken that. My response to you was limited to the fifth sentence. Like I said, I'll have time to reply to you tomorrow.

Drizz, eagerly waiting... By the way, since you said Ken should not agree with Centrists, and he was in essence agreeing with me over Erik, it seemed like you were calling me a Centrist.

Since you're up to responding to all of this, and since you say things like "either you have principles and live up to them or you don't," please explain how a principled libertarian, capitalist and market fundamentalist can work for such a Collectivist institution as the Texas Association of Schoolboards. But make this your last priority. I mainly want to hear you defend the trampling of the rights of others by booming bass cars. Thank you.

Sorry Doc, but you lost me. Exactly what right is being violated when someone rolls by with a loud stereo?

hiigaran, what right can be cited to support loud stereos? Please don't say "freedom of speech." See, playing a stereo is not speech. Having the right to make an artistic recording is free speech. Having the right to say "I enjoy this artist and believe in his message" is free speech. Playing that music for your enjoyment is a form of free speech. Playing that music in such a way that *I* am *FORCED* to listen is not free speech. That is a nuicance since we all know you are capable of playing it at a volume that would not force me to hear. Plain, simple logic. But I'll destroy your libertarian fantasy even further just to be complete. Read on...

Surely you aren't thinking of this for justification:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

See, this is from the Declaration of Independence, which is not Law. If loud stereos are a part of the pursuit of happiness, then NOT WANTING TO HEAR YOUR LOUD STEREO is part of my pursuit of happiness. Apparently we have a happiness conflict. Well, hey look at the next sentence in the Declaration:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

See, we don't live under anarchy. If you want to be a citizen of the United States, you must buy into some sort of social contract, that being Government and its laws. "DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED." That means we believe in allowing for reasonable amounts of law and regulation. We consent to Governments making rules, so long as the rules don't violate the Constitution. And sadly enough for you, reasonable noise ordinances are supported by a GREAT majority in this country, so you are stuck with the risk of being fined when you annoy the f*** out of other people with your loud stereo. That is the sense in which my rights are being violated.

Now come back at me and explain your high-minded ideals about freedom and individualism. None of that means a thing. Without the help of society you would be merely a stone-age hunter and gatherer. Without other people, systems, communities and yes, laws, your life would be nasty, brutish and short, to borrow a phrase you're probably not aquainted with. (Quick, go look it up on google so you can report back on who said it and act like you knew.) You DO owe something to society, and the most basic part of what you owe is common decency and courtesy.

Good luck tearing me down, Drizz, Erik and hiigaran. Can't wait to see what you've got to say. Between this post and my previous ones, I've completely decimated any argument you might come up with. Logic, the Constitution and the wise words of Thomas Jefferson are all I needed. OH, and the backing of 95% of the population who hate being bothered by the noises of fools. What have you got to reply with? I hope not Ayn Rand quotes.

Come on, bring it on! Oh, and hiigaran, please re-read my other posts. It's obvious you didn't read them if you had to ask what you asked.

Doc, you're an arrogant prick.

It's a shame that you're also completely correct. :)

Oh doc, doc, doc. You certainly are presumptuous. I never once said anything about my own position. I asked you about yours, and you have yet to respond. I'll be waiting, considering your argument seems to be supported by the idea that because more people support you, you're right.

Kelly, I'm sorry you got bothered on a Saturday morning. I've lived in apartment complexes where there was extensive construction going on next door for weeks at a time. I worked a graveyard shift in Austin but lived in San Marcos and having to deal with the noise during the day when everyone else was awake took some time to get used to.

It seems like you favor laws that place restrictions on people's activities on the basis that those activities can and do bother you and others. You want the law to prohibit noisy activity in residential neighborhoods during a wider range of time. But you want those laws based somewhat on your preferences and standards of what constitutes noisy when that noise is intolerable. Or at least some form of democratically-acceptable standards for your area. But that leaves the homeowner who wants to get heavy work done on his house during the weekend out in the lurch. You were dismissive about this, but imagine your frustration one day if you wanted to get work done on your home at 10am on a Saturday and your neighbor came over and complained it was too loud...and you thought the noise was acceptable both in level and time of day?

Can't make the law too lax; people will skirt around it and people like you won't be satisfied. Can't make the law too strict; personal freedom gets squelched and cottage industries of legal wrangling blossom up around the lawsuits and people trying to get things done will be angry.

I want to know why my "neighborhood policy" suggestion won't work. It would be a binding contract between homeowner and the community and if it's terms were broken, penalties could be levied. Anyone who ignored their violations would eventually be evicted due to gross breach of contract. It all depends on the terms in the agreement and bylaws. This way, the voluntary way, is the best and most ethical approach to the problem as I see it.

Doc, let me first say that I don't care if the government (let's not get this mixed up with "society" please) builds the roads these people use to drive around on; I don't want the government in the transportation-solution business. You are unfortunately mixing up otherwise good notions of individual property rights with those of collective ownership, which does not exist.

To own something is to be the master of it, to determine it's fate. If the government builds a road "for everyone" in our benefit and we control the government and therefore the road is ours collectively, then why can I not stake out a section of it and turn it into a lemonade stand? Or offer people from a nearby neighborhood to let their dogs crap on it? Did I not pay for some small part of the road? If I am part of the collective that "owns" the road, why is my right to use it limited to what others say? No, the entities that actually own the road are the government agencies that have been erected to control it. The illusion of collective ownership is great but it's a lie.

I find it intriguing, Doc, that you know those bass enthusiasts on the Net well enough to label them Nazis. I consider that way out of line, far more than annoying someone with loud music. It's an ugly way to smear those you dislike. And your assertion that these people are slaves to conformity may be right, but they are certainly NOT slaves in the sense you are trying to imply. They are FREE to conform, free to choose to conform. Your view, not theirs, would bring slavery.

Your comment about McDonald's and private roads doesn't diminish Erik's and my arguement: it bolsters it. We know people in general want to be left alone in peace, so those kinds of voluntary regulations would come into existence to deal with problems of this nature. On *private property*. We aren't defending the noise-bangers because we want them to blast their music, we are defending their freedom to do it provided they don't intitiate force against others while doing it, provided they aren't doing it with malicious intent to annoy, and provided they do it while respecting the individual property rights of the land they are on.

My about page is merely a quick reference spot for the curious to visit if they want to know a little more about me beyond my posts. I put it together in a rush. Music is a large part of my life so I made that obvious. I label myself because it gives me something to call myself and what I believe in. I don't care what you think you are or what you think I am; I care how people, events, and intentions compare to what I believe.

If you'd re-read my initial post, you'd recognize I didn't simply ignore the potential noise problems of someone living at the edge of a property next to a spot where loud music is acceptable. I didn't go into detail about it because the principles I'm coming from essentially say such situations will always be in flux, as it is up to the participants to come to agreement. The edges of property will be contentious. No one here is arguing for utopia.

Anyone who threatens or uses violence against you when complaining about their noise isn't the kind of person I wish to be associated with, so let's stop doing that alright? I won't call you Stalin for taking his side on this issue, because you aren't him and have done nothing to deserve that insult. If a vulgar alcoholic pedophile wife-beater is jailed for swearing at the police, I will defend his right to free speech. My defense does not extend to his lifestyle. I don't admire those who break just and correct laws such as murder, theft, assault, and fraud.

If I lived in the situation you described, I would first ask them to stop or tone it down. If that didn't work, I'd ask the property owner to do something. If that didn't work and it bothered me enough, I'd move. I recently moved from one apartment complex to another because the water quality and large homeless population bothered me enough to demand a serious response after it became clear the apartment management either couldn't or wouldn't do anything about it. Yes it's a hassle. But I'd rather endure the hassle than push for a law that cut down property rights.

"[O]ne of my ilk"? I'm degrading your quality of life? You need to calm the hell down, Sir. Re-read the first part of my initial post. I'm not the perpetrator here.

Your downgrade of assault to mean "that which drives other people crazy" is disheartening. Are you really honest about that? Because it would then be the case that someone in this comment thread is committing assault. Better call the police!

I don't have time to continue right now, but I'll try to follow up during lunch.

There are several reasons why I work at TASB. The people are friendly, the pay and benefits are good, and it's got a good location relative to my apartment. The work isn't deeply challenging and I'm exposed to a whole side of the education business that I wasn't before. It's also a fundamentally private company that works primarily for the benefit of Texas public education. I don't support government-funded education and have made enough posts on this blog to that effect to potentially endanger my employment. Why do I work at the Risk Management Fund when many of it's stated goals conflict with my beliefs? I could give it up and have my parents pay for my expenses and go to college. I'm still here because of two things: I don't want to look for another job now when I'm not even sure what I want to do career-wise and there is a slim distant hope that I might one day rise to some position of power where I could change the direction of the company towards a freer market in education.

I've defended why I don't support noise ordinance laws. I want to hear you defend the trampling of the rights of car owners because I'm not convinced.

Property rights are the princple rights at issue here, though I think one could make a free speech arguement (not that I'd buy into it). You own the land and home and "Bill" owns the SUV and stereo equipment. You say peace and quiet on your property is more important than Bill blasting music loudly in his car as he cruises past your home. Bill's property is bothering you. You say that this should therefore be grounds for a law that prohibits loud sounds (music/movies/etc., since heavy bass can come from both autos and homes) in residential areas. You've solved your bothersome problem.

But you've also quite literally torn up Bill's and everyone else's freedom to listen to music at volumes they enjoy across huge swaths of the city. You've taken away a much greater freedom - freedom of physical action - than what they took away from you: the freedom of peace and quiet. I don't deny that loud boomy music can often be more than just a nusiance and can approach the outrageously loud, but the solution isn't to just ban that which annoys you. We simply cannot operate society that way because everyone has differing opinions on what's annoying and what isn't. Our freedoms will be strangled under a burdensome book of rules.

No one here has advocated anarchy or stated that we live under such a system. Erik, hiigaran, and I are of the opinion that this country has gone too far in it's pursuit of little grievences like yours and it's solutions to those grievences: taxing, regulation, and prohibition. We advocate a simpler and much less-involved government. None of us advocate a society-less existence, so stop putting words into our mouths.

Don't bother using "the majority agrees with me!" as an arguement. It doesn't hold up under logic. If a "GREAT majority" or "95%" of Americans believed you should drop bricks on your bare feet, would you do it? 'course not.

I'm again depressed you apparently give so little care about freedom and individualism. You are aware that was what this country championed so early on in it's life, right? That's what made it so bold and unique. Those ideals are far more important to uphold and respect than slowly chipping away at them because some people have a problem with loud music.

Here's something that may hit closer to home: Suffering fools and their foolish behavior is also part of our "social contract." Deal with it, because the law isn't to be used as your personal problem-solver.

Drizz, by your reasoning, you must support my "right" to follow a loud stereo to his/her home, park in front of their house, set up a gigantic PA system and shout "THIS C***SUCKING A**HOLE ANNOYS THE LIVING F*** OUT OF ME!" all night, every night for a year straight. No? You support his right to park outside my home and blare a stereo to an unlimited extent.

You guys have skirted ALL of my arguments. No one ever answered my point about not being free to drive 100 mph on residential streets. You seem to think enjoyment is some sort of fundamental right. Some people enjoy driving recklessly - why don't you complain about speed limits interfering with their enjoyment? Enjoyment is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution.

"we are defending their freedom to do it provided they don't intitiate force against others while doing it" - dude, sound IS force. Sound waves are pressure waves. Pressure = force divided by area. Look it up. If "Bill" from above wants to stand on the street using his right to free speech - cool - I won't hear it if I don't want to, I can just shut my door and prevent the pressure waves from reaching my ear. Use of an amplifier FORCES his speech into my house, so that would be wrong.

Your only solution is to suggest that people move, or set up their own private communities. However, in essense, all towns and cities are private communities. And you don't have to live in any of them! If you want to avoid noise ordinances, then don't live in cities that have them.

Fact is, there are a lot of gray areas in life and in the law. Part of democracy's job is to define rules within the gray areas. "The majority agrees with me" is not an argument? Majority rule IS democracy. You don't believe in democracy? Again, go back to my previous post. Then read the Constitution. Then read the Declaration of Independence, which clearly defines the goals under which our nation was founded. Unless the Constitution prohibits a certain type of law, the people are FREE to create the laws they wish to create. The people have chosen to create noise ordinaces. YOU LOSE, and the majority rules. It's quite beautiful in my opinion.

So there are too many laws? Too bad - live with it. That's what overpopulation brings with it. I'm personally opposed to overpopulation because of the limitations it automatically imposes on personal freedom. But the reality is we have to live with millions of other people around us all the time, and that requires a complex web of law.

When you hold "property rights" as the highest of all causes, you're taking an extremest position. What if an extremely evil and intelligent person somehow legally gained ownership of 99% of the land on earth. What if the rest of humanity was left to suffer in the remaining 1% of the land. You would actually defend the one rich guy's rights to maintain the fence holding you and 6 billion other people into your little plot of land? Absurd situations can arise under any system - then it's time to evaluate the validity of the system. Property rights are quite well-defended in this country, and it takes a heck of a lot of LAW to defend those property rights. You're way out on a limb in whining about encroachments on property rights.

Why were you complaining about a homeless population? What were they doing wrong? In your vision of the world, everyone owns some tiny bit of the city and are free to do as they please. How are the homeless a problem? I see some serious hypocricy in your actions. In that incident you also got a swell taste of one of the bad effects of property rights. The owners of rental properties often simply don't care about the sufferings of tenants. The owners are filthy rich and can go live in those walled communities you speak of, isolating themselves. The rest of us are left to deal with booming stereos all night long.

I don't need to defend the trampling of the rights of car owners because you're talking about some "right" that doesn't exist. Read the Bill of Rights. Tell me where you are granted the absolute right to enjoy your music in any way you want regardless of the consequences. WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION ARE YOU GUARANTEED THE RIGHT TO USE AN AMPLIFIER?

Please give me some specific answers this time.

hiigaran, yes, on forums like this sometimes one has to be a little presumptuous. We don't have the luxury of face-to-face contact in which the more subtle meanings of speech can be seen and understood. I've outlined an extensive argument using the United States Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and pure logic. You're the one who has done nothing. If you don't get my point, you may as well give up because there's something very lacking in your reading comprehension skills.

"You guys have skirted ALL of my arguments. No one ever answered my point about not being free to drive 100 mph on residential streets. You seem to think enjoyment is some sort of fundamental right. Some people enjoy driving recklessly - why don't you complain about speed limits interfering with their enjoyment? Enjoyment is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution."

Actually, we've all provided ample proof for why people should be allowed to bass it up as much as they please. People exist and have an inalienable right to their lives. You're of the opinion that a contradiction can exist somewhere, completely forgetting that it's logically impossible. Your philosophy is comprised of random notions and assertions that sometimes don't agree with each other, and rather than correcting these problems, you choose to let them linger and come up with an excuse similar to "that's just how things are" and try to convince people that contradictions are just gray areas.

I don't believe in democracy. Democracy, applied logically, is a disgusting practice. Democracy is the system that would allow two people decide it's okay to kill the third, and carry it out with no moral qualms. The United States is NOT a democracy. Athens was a democracy, and that's why Socrates was executed for his unpopular beliefs. The United States is a constitutional republic. Laws would be totally pointless if all were subject to the whims of a loosely organized majority.

Where do you get the idea that overpopulation results in too many laws? The world is far from overpopulated. Drizz and I live in Texas, and as a result of the miles and miles of nothing that you come across, can assure you that the world is FAR from overpopulated. By your logic, today there would be a ratio of laws to people far greater than the ratio of laws to people from say, the Middle Ages. Try again, sir.

Sure, it's possible, while incredibly improbable, that someone could own most of the world's land. But JESUS FUCKING CHRIST MAN, according to your majority rules without exception logic, the same thing could happen if a lot of people happened to be evil. You can't just avoid the possibility that someone will do something bad. It's absolutely impossible to guarantee that no one will do evil. No system will cure it, so the possibility that someone bad will DO something bad doesn't discredit an argument for a particular kind of society.

Drizz and I don't hold property rights as the "highest cause." Man's right to life is the most fundamental of all rights. Property rights are an extension of this right. I fail to see how someone would be able to buy EVERYONE's living space from them. I don't think anyone would sell his living space without finding a new one first. Your situation is impossible in a capitalist system.

The homeless don't pay taxes, so they're just getting a free ride. THAT'S a homeless problem. The homeless don't own the roads or any part of the city, because they contributed nothing. Thing is, NO ONE owns ANY of the property funded by taxes, which is a problem of contradiction, considering the property is supposedly owned by everyone.

Hey, Doc, where in The Constitution are you guaranteed the right to get online, the right to drive a car, the right to wear clothes, go to the bathroom, walk around, breathe, eat, or sleep? The Constitution is flawed. While it does limit the government's scope somewhat, it doesn't prevent the government from establishing anti-eating laws, does it? It's incomplete, because it doesn't completely guarantee liberty.

Man are you ever desperate... "people have an inalienable right to their lives." What does that mean? And says who exactly? Such sweeping and vague statements are useless without some definition. Your ideal about having a right to your life won't stop a hungry crocodile from biting your leg off if you step in his pond. You're immune from all outside influence and your life, the way it is with all of its modern American pleasures and conveniences, simply always DESERVES to be how you want it? Who says blasting a stereo is a protected RIGHT? For crying out loud. Answer a simple question. Oh, you don't believe in democracy and the Constitution is flawed. You're above it all. In other words you're simply inventing your own definitions. By being extremely vague, you think you can just demand any "right" that sounds good to you. That doesn't fly. So, please, define what you're getting at. I've defined my stance - based on history and the legal authority (the Constitution) we live with. Whether its flawed or not, it's at least an authority. You're just saying "this is the way it SHOULD be," without any evidence or supporting theorists behind you. Come on, name a philosopher, a book, a legal document or something outside your personal fantasy world. You speak of "morals." Who defines morality? You know what - in some situations it might be right for two people to decide they have to kill a third. Thankfully in OUR lives that is an unusual circumstance. For people stranded in the middle of nowhere maybe cannibalism is suddenly the only option. Who are you to step in and make a moral judgement? I could go on for pages throwing questions like these at you. Why not make it easier on us and tell us the ultimate basis for your morality, and your inalienable right to blast car stereos? Because I don't see it anywhere in what anyone has written.

As to your last paragraph, the Constitution DOES NOT guarantee my right to do any of that stuff. I am able to do those things by living in a society that allows such things and makes them possible. I take part in the social contract, obey laws, pay taxes, etc. I fully realize I could do NONE of that if I was a lone idealist living without anyone interfering with my freedoms in any way.

Look at your last sentence. You don't see a problem with that? You'll never be guaranteed absolute liberty. First, to have absolute liberty you need to be omnipotent. Second, absolute liberty implies no limits or boundaries, meaning you could rape, kill and torture without consequence. That's what you strive for? Good luck. The rest of us won't let it happen.

Again, answer some of the moral dilemma type questions I posed. Do you support driving 100 mph in a residential area? Would it be just fine and dandy if I stood outside your house with a PA system every night, all night, shouting insults? And the others...... I'm waiting.

It's currently not immoral to go 100 in a residential area. The law is invalid because it's based in something that exists unjustly. If the road were someone's property and he established a speed limit, it WOULD be wrong.

You mean my arguments would be validated were they to be supported by "credible" philosophers? That's some of the most disturbing nonsense I've ever heard. Even if no one had espoused these ideas before, THAT ITSELF doesn't invalidate them. Since you want someone else to explain it to you:

Read Ayn Rand.
Read "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat and ignore the references to God.
Read Ludwig von Mises
Read Thomas Sowell
Read Aristotle

For a good introduction and overview of proper philosophy, check out www.importanceofphilosophy.com

If you read those works and still find yourself thoroughly unconvinced, then I have nothing more to say to you, and will concede that we can never agree.

Fuck, Im still doing the write & delete thing.
Will try small point form:

1. I hate Drizz not because of his beliefs, but the fact that I now realise I cant follow them. I agree with him, but I dont want to. I now no longer believe I have much in common with a real libertarian.
2. I said closer to the centre. We all know I will never be 'centre'. I cant be. Centre is compromise. I know of no path that says "sometimes its ok, sometimes it isnt". Compromise is fine if it makes things better, but I'll leave compromise to those best suited for it.
3. I hate Drizz. That hot manly body, the intelligent mind, that stupid point that banning sound that does no tangible harm is like banning a weapon thats never been fired (does that work?)
4. I hate banning stuff. I hate being so arrogant as to tell another human that what I like is fine, but what they like is not. At least as someone sort-of libertarian I can say "what you like sucks, but now we're both free to be ourselves".
5. It is not always profitable to provide some areas with roads and telephony. Perhaps the Libertarian ideal needs ponder that.

Then again, who made roads before federal governments.. there WERE roads, and not only rome had em. But they'd be dodgy.

I'll read everybodies posts more thoroughly when I get home.

Did I mention I hate Drizz?

Hio, long time lover first time caller.

This debate is becoming heated which is a path towards irresolution and emotional bias. Perhaps someone seconding Doc’s basic stance can shed a different light onto it, if in service I may be so drafted.

All these arguments are presupposing a basic right to “LIFE”, it should first be acknowledged by all parties that this is a basic starting point fundamental to the United States “SOCIETY”. In response to Eric’s initial aversion to the blanket term “SOCIETY”- you show a recognition of a penchant of the human being to develop a collective of “INDIVIDUALS”, yet disregard the full implications of such a fundamental aspect of the human being; developmental structuring occurs in a nurtured (aka conditioned, aka instilled, aka influenced, etc.) and material sense within-the-world. “INDIVIDUALS” are the result of a applied conditioning, “INDIVIDUALS” do not exist as separate entities to the “SOCIETY” as a whole, nor does the “SOCIETY” exist without the collective group of “INDIVIDUALS”.

--“TM, you’re ignoring the ability of division between an “INDIVIDUAL” and the parent “SOCIETY”, of course an “INDIVIDUAL” is influenced by his parent “SOCIETY”, but he is not thereby restricted to it.”

He is, if he expects to retain the same personal rights offered under the initial presupposition of “LIFE”. If we’re to supply this fundamental right universally among the “SOCIETY OF MAN”, then there must be a cohesive definition of what the right to “LIFE” refers to provided by a collective, aka “SOCIETY”. Is the right to “LIFE” merely concerned with the mortality of man, or does it have supplemental rights affording a protection to the individual?

There is a base flaw in a system founded on the right only to continue living- without sociological intervention on the part of a collective of “INDIVIDUALS” (“SOCIETY”) then there are no rights at all. Even in an ideological sense, to proclaim ANY basic human right is to provide a system for the protection thereof. Provisions are made under the heading of “LIFE” to further categorize it’s appeal. “LIFE” is also an agreement on safety and basic “INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS” that protect all human beings equally. Without such support, the basic concept of a primary right is non-existent. A proclamation as absolute as “the fundamental human right” must be prepared to both uphold it AND protect that right, or the proclaimed law is merely a suggestive guideline. This is done through the governing body for the simple reason that, although it may not be entirely unbiased, the governmental body is still the only way to enforce such a law in practice. You can argue all you want about some sort of community task forces or vigilantes, but such feudalistic idealism was a precursor to a democratic system of protection to begin with. Enforcement of the right to “LIFE” falls on the shoulders of the government as the extended community taskforce, or communal effort- were it not to be under the control in a grander sociological perspective, then there would be no reason to initially posit a universal right to begin with, for who would enforce it? Of course there are flaws in the system itself, but that is due to reality in-the-world. Ideologies can only go so far without real-world application.

Property rights spawned from the inseparable concepts of “CAPITALISM” and “PRIVATE PROPERTY”. These are concurrent and inseparable. “LIFE” is not merely the protection of a breathing hunk o’ meat, it is a recognition of the multitude of aspects comprising your own concept of the “INDIVIDUAL”, especially under a “CAPITALIST” system. I’ve actually yet to see a single argument that would grant the Bass-Boomers the right to infringe upon the homeowners rights save blanket “slippery-slope” comments, or those that convert the entire argument into ideological fantasy. Ideology can do many things, but it cannot directly expunge the reality of a situation out of an argument. As such, I am curious as to what definitions the others have of the concepts of “LIFE” and the “INDIVIDUAL” before commenting further.

*I use this term in the Marxian socio-economic sense outlined in the “Economic and Philosophical manuscripts of 1844”

I post and there's something i immediately have to respond to.

--“It's currently not immoral to go 100 in a residential area. The law is invalid because it's based in something that exists unjustly. If the road were someone's property and he established a speed limit, it WOULD be wrong.” ~Erik

I have to disagree with the basic structuring of this argument. I vehemently oppose defining ‘MORALITY” as private law as “MORALITY” is an associative term for proper action for all, not on an “INDIVIDUAL” basis. If an “INDIVIDUAL” owns the road and enacts laws upon it. suddenly creating a spring of “MORALITY” over the area, how does that differ from the collective action of “INDIVIDUALS” whom similarly enacted such laws? Additionally, what are you structuring “JUSTICE” on- “INDIVIDUAL” prerogative?

The speeding itself doesn't have anything to do with the morality of the action. I was saying that it would be unacceptable if it were legitimate property and the speed limit was imposed by the owner, because that would be a violation of his right to the property.

Erik - so unless something is privately owned, it is in the sphere of complete moral ambiguity? You have one seriously muddled mind. ~TM has some good stuff for you, so I'll sit back and relax a while, but don't forget to answer the dozen or so intellectual puzzles I posed for your libertarian master plan. I'm still waiting for many specific answers. And don't give me that "oh, you have to read everything by these people to talk to me" bit. I have read 4 of those 5 authors, but it's ridiculous to say I need to read every last word before we can debate. You should be able to point to some specific passages that elegantly outline the basis of all these ideals you claim to possess. I've done that much for my side. Get to work!

ONLY DOC NEEDS TO READ, AND EVEN HE DOESNT HAVE TO READ IT ALL. I GOT CARRIED AWAY AS USUAL, MAKING LITTLE OR NO POINT AND JUST RANTING POINTLESSLY LIKE IM BEGINING TO DO RIGHT NOW IN THIS WARNING MESSAGE. SORRY.

Doc, what is the grande greatness of the constitution? This often bothers me. People are unable to even think of "another" way. The constitution was just a document written by men. Other men can write a new one. One that that, just for you, has a special line in it that reads thus:
Ampz are teh evil, banz0rz them!!
Cept, you wouldnt like that, would you comrade? You would amend it:
"AmpZ are teh evil, cept like, when /me iz tryings to sleep, yo?"
There was a time when people worked a good deal more than 10 hours a day. Not a few, everyone. Furthermore, there was a time when Sunday was considered a non-working day. (I don't know if this applies to America). Now then, what if the majority decided that Sunday was private prayer day. Suppose they made a law that says: "Ampz is teh evil, on Sundays, and between 10pm and 8am on all days".
Sorry, I should just get to my point. Not everybody works 9-5. Not everybody works Monday to Friday. Not everybody is woken by bass drivers, and not everyone has perfect hearing. A majority can be based on any number of factors and so isnt neccesarily the 'right' way. Right now we live in an age where the majority of people are old for instance. In Iraq however, my understanding is that the majority of people are young.

(delete, re-type).

Let me continue by qualifying myself as a 'victim'. I drive a honda civic `78 which doesnt even have a radio. I am 20 and live in an apartment complex on a major road through my suburb. Lots of young people live in the area. When I first moved in, I couldnt sleep well. Trucks, neighbour's motorbike, neighbours' boom box, rap music downstairs, his V8 and get this, his dickhead friends beeping their horn at 3am to signal they were there to take him out clubbing. I was and am still working 9-5, mon to fri. I dealt with it. One of the other apartments got new neighbours. Several times they came up, knocked on our door around 10pm-ish at night on a Friday, and would ask us to turn it down. No authorities ever got involved. You know why? Cos we *did* start to take neighbours into consideration. We (my roommate and I) both have big sound systems on our computers, and home theatre for the TV. (he works for a major HiFi place here).
Even though my brother worked 3pm-12am and thus was usually sleeping or trying to when those same neighbours would probably not have a qualm about apartment renovations between 9am-1pm. Why? Because we arent obnoxious. They explained that during the weekdays they could hack it no matter how late as those were their Uni days. On Weekends, they had to work, and early. So on Fri and Sat night, I usually adjust the bass on the equaliser for our TV if I think I'm going to make a lot of noise.

Under a libertarian society, if that neighbour came along and I DIDNT turn down my music, he could do it back to me when *I* want to sleep. Then if I decided I wouldnt play like that and went to intimidate him as your 'NAZIs' would do, I'd likely end up shot.

I wont say the majority of people are stupid, because I dont believe it. But I will say that I do not give any moral or legal importance of a bunch of people agreeing. We dont live in a democracy. People will ask me during arguements "but ken, dont you support democracy? what most people want is the way is has to be". What a joke. The majority of people dont want speeding fines. If a majority of people wanted the troops home, they'd be back in a day. Our democracy, is the ability to select a minority to represent us. Im sure you're aware that even now, many who voted for Bush may not have wanted to, or may right now be hating many of his policies but planning to vote him back in. THAT is our democracy. In my country its even mandatory to vote. The only time we see true democracy in action I suppose (and Id ont know the definition of democracy), would be the referendums here in Australia. Voting here is mandatory, so a referendum has something like 98% of the populations actual decision on something.

Sorry, going offtopic. I'll finish up:

* Constitution has no divine authority. A piece of paper no different than any that preceded it. Its power lies in our belief that it is best, not in and of itself. 2 tablets of stone were once the 'best' mankind had if the bible is to be believed. How do you feel about not respecting your parents?

* What you may think is the decision of the majority is not. Apathy and lack of revolution is not a sign of agreement. Who decided the hours 10pm-8am? Who decided the decibel level? What makes 1 noise level any less evil than the next level up? What if the noise level is the product of a street party. 9 out of 10 houses have attended this party, but the 10th wants it ended. Where's the majority rule now? The other streets arent bothered, so where is the devine authority of 'society' now?

* I can sleep through many kinds of noise. I have suffered no physical, emotional or mental trauama as a result of being woken. Were I to suffer such a thing, I would be free to prove it in a lawcourt and seek damages. Let a criminal not be one of opinion or emotion, but of cause and effect. If it is permissable to play loud music right next to a house where a night duty man is trying to sleep at 12pm, then why is there a punishment etc set up for the exact same action at night? If you say "because the majority are sleeping", see my last point about 9/10 houses.

* Part of the reason for me becoming the sort of person I am now, is that I realised the best way to do things is not to lay down further rules, expect the worst, think the worst and otherwise seek to always be the victim party. If my neighbour never came to me, he'd still be losing sleep. It has honestly made me wonder from the night I heard him talking about it, about my previous neighbours. (I only asked a few of my neighbours if it was bothersome, they had given me suggestions and a clear 'go ahead' signal from the begining). Through community effort and common decency we can make a better world. You say that overpopulation creates more laws. I call bullshit. I say it is not overpopulation but disconnection from our fellow man. Im not going to preach a utopia of 'comrades'. Im saying I agree that communities could set up their own rules for their domain, and enforce them appropiately. Borders between neighbourhoods have the potential for friction, but otherwise its a fine idea. It adheres to your belief in demoracy defined by the majority. Young communities would have their noise and late night parties. Those young who feel oppressed in their quieter communities could move to a younger neighbourhood and vice versa.

So many issues are tied together here, or at least, in my strange world of small connections. To me we're not talking about amps. We're talking about car manufacturers, building companies, gun rights, and police. If it is a crime to play loud music at night, it can become a crime to not have soundproofing in new complexes. You might think that crazy, but Im sure similar such rules exist. All it would take, is for everybody to have an amp and start wanting to be the victims.. victims of builders who cut corners and made non-solid houses. I say gun rights, because we're talking about banning certain activities that people simply disapprove of.. activities that they will often gladly accept, but only by THEIR terms. (e.g. soldiers, militia, police officers etc. Suddenly using a gun in those instances is fine, probably fine to shoot somebody about to rape you. But not fine if you shot somebody elses' rapist, cos maybe it was the 'system' that did it.). I know that looks thin, and it might be. But to me, I see no difference. Saying to a person "I dont care that you sleep during the day, Im going to pave my driveway today" in one instance, then returning that night and saying "Im trying to sleep here. Stop it. Nighttime is traditionally a time for sleep, and the majority sleep at this time too, so stop" appears not one inch differently to me than saying: "ok, YOU over there can shoot that criminal with a TV in his hands, because you have a state mandate" and then walking over to the homeowner who shot the TV thief before the cop could and saying "but YOU should not have fired. Even if the action and circumstance is the same, you NEED state mandate first".

* My world is strange, but thats how I see it. Guess what. They say "New York is the city that never sleeps". Ever since artificial lighting, there is no reason why humans must be only active during the day and therefore inactive at night. What are the noise rules for New York? How many people live in Apartments in major cities dealing with loud noise, and light levels, at all or many hours of the night? Why are their rights less than yours? What says that THEY dont have the right to tell everyone outside to STFU or set the cops onto them? They are trying to sleep at night, and they are in their homes. What will you say? That they deserve it because they live in that kind of area and accepted the risks? If so, please see your own arguement about people shouldnt have to move, and see my statement that youth could move away from quiet areas. Suddenly, it makes sense doesnt it? What Drizz proposed is already in place.
If you instead said; "no, making those areas quiet is unfeasible. It would disrupt millions of dollars in business, and besides, those people are in the minority compared to the ones awake", then I would tell you to see my point about 9/10 houses. Suddenly you have to agree because of your own restrictive beliefs. And lets not even touch the idea of "hey, you have rights, just as long it dont cost anybody money".

Im very sorry for writing so much messy crap. Feel free to unleash your fearsome logic on me. I have nothing better to do. Sorry Drizz.

Well shit. Now that TM's here everything gets all big 'n serious. :)

There is a lot to digest and I have to do it from work since my home Net access is out at the moment.

What I will say right now:

1. "The majority agrees with me, therefore my position is correct." This is NOT a logical arguement. (See: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html ) This is an indisputible flaw in democratic systems because masses of people can join together in (innocent or not) ignorance and make a bad decision that screws a lot of people.

2. I see serious problems when people use the Constitution as the basis of "rights" and say things like, "but that ain't in the Bill of Rights!" A "right" is fundamental, timeless, and inalienable; something far more deep than a principle or maxim. You can't create rights out of thin air, I agree. I posted a link in my original post ( http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Index.html?http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_Rights.html ) that very closely describes what I believe rights are and how they are constructed. All springs from man owning his or her own life; the opposite of being a slave. From that the corollaries of Right to Liberty and Property spring.

Once again, I'll try to respond more robustly later.

Don't worry, Ken. You're still da Man, even if you live in Kangaroo Land.

Doc, your last post proves that you haven't been reading what I write very attentively. I didn't say that you had to read those things to debate with me. Not ONCE did I even suggest that they were prerequisites. I suggested that you did, and after having read it all, if you were still unconvinced, then no agreement would be possible between us.

On the issue of moral ambiguity, initiating the use of violence is ALWAYS wrong. Stealing or destroying someone's property is ALWAYS wrong. Lying is wrong a great deal of the time. However, on tax-funded property, rules don't carry any weight. Logically, everyone could make their own rules considering they all paid for it.

I'm sure your argument over that will be that "this is a democracy, we have to do what the majority wants" but that just opens the doors to sending 49% of the population to death camps if 51% wanted it. If roads were publicly financed based on a voluntary agreement to pay the tax in exchange for using the road, and the rules were agreed upon beforehand, then they would be valid.

"On tax-funded property rules don't carry any weight." You are way out there, man. You live in Fantasyland, Erik.

I didn't say the Constitution is a divine authority. I'm trying to point out that THERE IS NO DIVINE AUTHORITY in this world. Each individual is free to find their own divine authority (religion, Ayn Rand, Plato, whatever they like). But what the Constitution has going for it is it has been an agreed-upon authority for over 200 years. And I agree with Jefferson's notion that if circumstance changes and the constitution is no longer fit, people should impose a revolution and change things. If some day a majority decides they want to enshrine Ayn Rand as our basis for society, then that's what will happen. (If that did happen, I'd be the first to emigrate!) But how do you make a damn novel into your constitution?

I never said the majority can't be fools. Hell, I think that's DEFINITELY the case quite often. But on the important issues, our Constitution does well for us.

Ken: "what if the majority decided that Sunday was private prayer day." Thankfully our Constitution makes such a law illegal, and thankfully the Constitution grants everyone the freedom to pray if they choose to. Thus, no such law is even neccesary. And it takes incredible effort and a vast majority concencus to change the Constitution. I thought you were seeing the light, Ken.... darn.

You guys are all reaching for a world of minimal law. Most, if not all of you seem to think the libertarian idealization of property rights and market forces can somehow deliver a more perfect society. But you ignore the fact that things like property, money, markets, exchange, and so forth are all MANMADE things. Being manmade, they are imperfect and changeable. They require definition. Why do you think we are saddled with the ridiculous amount of law and regulation that's in place? Ever heard the adage "Property is nine tenths of the law."?

At some later date I'll gladly explain my overpopulation thesis. Until then, answer some of my questions, damnit! No one has said if it would be okay for me to set up a PA system outside your house every night and shout hateful slogans at you at incredible volume! Among others... ANSWERS, PLEASE!

You said "What those SUV owners did was probably illegal.
§ 10-5-3 GENERAL RESTRICTIONS.

A person may not:

(5) operate sound equipment in a vehicle audible or causing a vibration 30 feet from the equipment

Does it deserve to be? Do the property rights of homeowners wishing for peace and quiet override the property rights of drivers blaring music? Does the nuisance of booming bass require the government to get involved?

I say "no" to all three questions."

You are a fucking jitbag. Any asshole that thinks he has a perfect right to disturb everybody he drives past needs to have the shit beat out of him. You assholes think you so bad, how come none of you ever pull over and defend your right to be an asshole when I stand on the side of the road cursing you out?
Because you are a bunch of ignorant pussies,Thats why.

You guys claim to be against use of force on others. When are you going to answer me about the fact that sound is a pressure wave, and pressure is force per unit area? Your unwanted sounds are entering my property and eardrums by force.

Ken brings up New York City. New Yorkers are currently aggressively pursuing a ban on car alarms. New Yorkers HATE that crap. But yes, they do choose to live there, so they have to suffer such consequences. But like in any city, they put up with noise that has to be there, like garbage trucks. Garbage truck noise enters my home by force, but I don't mind because I don't want to live amongst heaps of garbage. Again, social contract and all that. It just so happens that in NYC noise like that of garbage trucks is more intense due to the crowding. I guarantee plenty of them HATE the invasion of booming bass and car alarms way more than I do.

YAY, Paul. I second that.

You love the term 'social contract' dont ya Doccy boy?

1. You say your constitution makes it illegal to make Sunday a 'quiet' day. Is this because your constitution: (a) Prohibits laws based on religion, (b) prohibits the society from imposing laws which prevent sound, (c) both of the above, or (d) other ?

If you were gonna go with (a), forget it mang, cos thats exactly what Im saying. It WOULD NOT be a religous law. It would be a majority society law. The purpose of that example, was to try and highlight in your mind that there are such things as "different" people in our society. In this case, it would be those who dont go to church then go home and meditate or relax. But I knew that wouldnt be enough for you,

So then we have the 9/10 houses and the Major City. You say "social contract", I ask why the contract is different for no reason. 95% of America is a clear vast majority, and you say we live in democracy. So why cant a inner city apartment dwller complain about the noise and have people arrested? You cant say "part of the risk of being in the area", because thats not fair. That states that somebody gets to define different areas as having different laws to the rest of us. Guess which factors will determine the laws? Money. No residents calling and complaining, its money. That is a really strong arguement man:

"Well SURE a person can live in New York, but they HAVE to deal with the noise, because it is more profitable for the government to let those people go restless"

And you cant deny that. Because if Im reading you correctly, if my ENTIRE STRETCH OF ROAD is young people with loud cars (either due to bad exhaust, powerful engine, or boom box) and we all clearly wanna be able to 'party' later into the night, you would deny us. You would say "no, even with a majority of those affected by your decision agreeing with it, there is no profit involved here so you must use the same rules that were imposed on all Americans bar those who live in major profit areas".

So let me just repeat myself for you once more:

Not everyone works 9-5
Not everyone works Mon-Fri
Not everyone is subject to 'peaceful' sleep laws between 10pm and 8am.
Yet somehow all those who arent a part of the above, still manage to live their lives just fine. In fact, how much damage is being caused by those who disobey the rules right now?

I recently went and stayed at my parent's property. We own nearly 400 acres of land, right next to a major highway. At night, the sound was very loud. Cicadas setting a pretty solid background, interspersed by huge semi-trailers going past at 110km/h. For many farmers, that's normal. The local town (15km awy) has LAWS in place regarding using compression brakes in the town area. However those trucks are FREE TO USE those very same breaks, right outside any property (any house therefore) along the highway.

So you can take your precious "social contract" and idea of "damage" and shove it someplace none-too-hygenic. Because by LOGIC (I dont normally say 'logic' in an arguement, but I couldnt resist because you seem so fond of it) your laws have already proved themselves unneccesary by not being applied to EVERYBODY.

Once again repeating myself, if there WAS any damages, it would be treated no different to any other infringement and the 'victim' would be free to prove the damages in court.

One final piece of thought for you, what does our current laws do? These people are not caught, are not stopped. Using police resources to stop a WRX that has a love for Eminem at 12am, is using police sources that may have otherwise been able to get to a rape scene quicker. It is expected in our world that everyone will have their house robbed at least once. One of my bosses has been robbed 3 times now, and broken into a few times more. Police simply show up and give you a slip to give to your insurance agent. Those are REAL infringements, and deserve more attention than you losing a few minutes of sleep. Naturally, once it becomes a real 'problem' and the police have proven themselves to be ineffective in combatting the problem MORE laws could be put in place. These laws would regard sound systems in cars etc.

If you think our world is bad now, wait until the cops pull over every flashy car they see, cos they suspect its been making noise. The loss of respect for the cops would be worse than the current levels. Police cannot perform in a society that not only doesnt give a shit about them and doesnt wanna help, but once they're chasing these woofer bandits, they'll not be taken as serious law enforcers. Police will once and for all be seen as enemy of the people. You think Im kidding, but I believe that in the space of just 5 years, Australians respect for the police has dropped a huge amount just over speeding fines. We're assured that speeders are a huge threat to society and that is supposed to explain the $millions the government pulls in by booking a person 5km/h over. Just wait till they do it to sound system owners as well. Dont think they wont or cant. "excuse me son, is that a radio in your car? oh, you reckon you didnt have it up loud. well I dont believe you. how about I give you a ticket, and you try and prove me a liar in court.".

unless police get decibel measures, what legal justification do they have? you like law, explain it to me. will we go to a guilty until proven innocent? or will more money and police be wasted on non-problems that small minded suburban folk have?

Ken blatantly twists words. Why do that here where everyone can plainly see what was previously written? That point was not about a law making Sunday a "quiet" day, it was about making Sunday a "prayer day." Why should I continue this when you make such dishonest revisions? I think I'll pick apart your most recent post by email, because this page is just getting too large. Simplify, please. Address the points I've been begging you to address for the last 10 posts.

I didn't mention any novels, much less mention making a constitution out of a novel. I'm pretty sure you're trying to attack me based on the fact that I mentioned Rand, so you assumed I spoke of Atlas Shrugged. Rand had some good philosophical points, which is why I mentioned her. That shouldn't suggest that I want an Objectivist government. One of her good philosophical points is her refutation of moral subjectivism. Check it out in reference to speeding laws.

I'll admit that I've been remiss to adress the issue of sound waves. It's a tricky issue. Applied COMPLETELY consistently, you could enforce noise ordinances against kids playing outside, people honking horns, birds chirping. Noise is out there, and it's impossible to avoid. So, I'd say that a ban on people annoying you by intentionally parking outside your house and blasting music would be somewhat acceptable. While people are just driving by with no ill intentions, then I think the ban is inappopriate.

I disagree with the "libertarian" position expressed here that opposes all noise ordinances affecting vehicles on public roads.

It's true that private property ownership would help to resolve many of these issues. But that doesn't mean that while there is government ownership of property, then anything short of direct, unwanted, physical contact with another person or his property (or threats of such) is ok. Was the question answered about whether the state can impose restrictions against reckless driving? How about driving under the influence? How about driving on the wrong side of the road?

I think the essence of libertarianism is the idea that people should be free to pursue their own projects without other people imposing unreasonable costs on them. I say "unreasonable", because there is a threshold of "cost" below which it is ridiculous to enforce this rule. Every time I breathe I'm reducing the available oxygen to everyone else, etc. On the moon, it might become reasonable to enforce property rights to oxygen because it would be more precious.

Likewise, I think there's a threshhold where noise becomes an unreasonable imposition of cost on other people, and restrictions should be enforced. It doesn't matter if the other person is on a public road, or on his own property; when he invades my space in a way that I cannot easily avoid, without going to significant expense and trouble, he's violating my property rights.

Why is throwing paint on my house a violation of my property rights, but throwing sound is not? Why do I have a right to have my house look the way I want, but not to sound the way I want? Both invade my property in a way that I would have to go to expense and trouble to rectify.

I see Paul is striving for the Most Erudite Commentary Award. Nothing like some wild personal insults and threats of violence to make your arguements, eh? He's also trying very hard for the Reading Comprehension Award, but I fret that he may accidentally run across one of the several sentences where I mention how I DON'T blast my stereo; might not get nominated for it if that happens. There's always a follow up comment, though...

Sorry for the piecemeal response, but I'm just taking on the bits as I see them.

"Most, if not all of you seem to think the libertarian idealization of property rights and market forces can somehow deliver a more perfect society. But you ignore the fact that things like property, money, markets, exchange, and so forth are all MANMADE things. Being manmade, they are imperfect and changeable. They require definition. Why do you think we are saddled with the ridiculous amount of law and regulation that's in place? Ever heard the adage 'Property is nine tenths of the law.'?"

I'm not ignoring that at all. At no time have I said that following the principles I believe in would result in a more perfect society. If I had to answer such a question, I would say "more just society" because perfection is out of the question. With perhaps the exception of property, the man-made things you mention do not require the intervention of government to function well. And understand that "function well" does not imply everyone being treated perfectly, equally, or with altruism. Free market capitalism cannot solve everyone's problem; it merely solves economic problems more efficiently than any other system and leaves people to take responsibility for themselves and their valuables.

"Drizz, by your reasoning, you must support my "right" to follow a loud stereo to his/her home, park in front of their house, set up a gigantic PA system and shout "THIS C***SUCKING A**HOLE ANNOYS THE LIVING F*** OUT OF ME!" all night, every night for a year straight. No? You support his right to park outside my home and blare a stereo to an unlimited extent."

Assuming:
1. All the property in question, from the street to the homes and land, and to the items used to deliver the sound is owned by individuals and not the state;
2. and the property you are on when you shout through your PA system has no notices posted regarding loud or obnoxious noise;
3. and the volume you broadcast at is low enough to not cause physical damage to the humans and property inside the home...

then yes, I would support your freedom to do that.

"Why were you complaining about a homeless population? What were they doing wrong? In your vision of the world, everyone owns some tiny bit of the city and are free to do as they please. How are the homeless a problem? I see some serious hypocricy in your actions. In that incident you also got a swell taste of one of the bad effects of property rights. The owners of rental properties often simply don't care about the sufferings of tenants. The owners are filthy rich and can go live in those walled communities you speak of, isolating themselves. The rest of us are left to deal with booming stereos all night long."

This is amusing because you don't know what the hell you're talking about here, though I didn't explain myself entirely the last time. My old apartment complex had a crime problem: lots of broken car windows and stolen goods, minor assaults, etc. There is a long strip of forested land bordering the apartment property where I'd guess 10-15 homeless people lived. I cannot prove it, but I have strong suspicions that some of the homeless were responsible for the bulk of the crime. My car stereo was stolen ( http://www.drizzten.com/blargchives/000115.html ) and like many other crimes, the scene strongly suggested people who needed quick cash and knew the daily activities of the owner were responsible. Beyond my suspicions, there was the day in and day out irritation of having to deal with panhandlers close to my home. In any event, the place I moved to has half the annual crime rate and zero vagrants roaming around. At least, I haven't see any...

Your assumption that my former landlords are filthy rich is wrong and displays an ugly bias that I'd like you to apologize for. Keep guessing about my circumstances, Doc. It isn't helping you any.

"Read the Bill of Rights. Tell me where you are granted the absolute right to enjoy your music in any way you want regardless of the consequences. WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION ARE YOU GUARANTEED THE RIGHT TO USE AN AMPLIFIER?"

This is a silly question. Where in the Constitution are you guaranteed the right to own a home or a pair of pants? The purpose of the Constitution and other documents like it is to lay out the groundwork of principles for a society to operate upon. They are semi-axiomatic for a reason; to explain precisely what people can and cannot do is not only a foolish waste of time, but it's the very essence of totalitarianism. Therefore, such documents must set out the fundamentals for people to follow and let those fundamentals determine the corollaries as time moves along. The best principles hold up under most or all situations. The US Constitution, for the most part, isn't that bad and is way better than most founding laws. But it could be better.

Back to the first part of your question: you complain about Ken twisting your words? Look at how badly you twisted mine! I never said or implied that people have "the absolute right to enjoy their music in any way they want regardless of the consequences." No, I have quite clearly mentioned how individual property rights limit (a la the "swing your fist until it hits my nose") moral action. I'm not an anarchist; if you park your car on my lawn and blast your music at 5am, that's wrong because I don't sanction such action on my property. If you turn it up loud enough, even if you aren't on my lawn or driveway, so that things break in my home or I get hearing damage...that's wrong as well.

"Finally, whose property is the air around us? Sound waves propogate through air. Do you have the right to manipulate the air that hundreds of other people are using? Where do YOU draw the line? Please tell me that. The air in my bedroom is moved by the people in that parking lot 100 yards away. You support that? There's an old adage: Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. How is this issue any different?"

I spent a little time talking about this in my first post. Yes, all sound waves are physical vibrations and as they increase in power, they increase in the force they apply to what they come in contact with. Therefore, I would take the position that music can be loud enough to constitute physical violence against a person and that person's property. Read the above. At volumes lower than that, as long as the person isn't on someone's property who has a personal noise ordinance on it, then it's all open.

"Do you support driving 100 mph in a residential area?"

If we are talking about a private road whose owner set the limit below that, then no. Regarding a public road, since I have explained why I believe "society" cannot legitimately own anything, then the answer is yes...I support the freedom to do so. However, that doesn't make such a choice wise, for all the obvious reasons.

"But what the Constitution has going for it is it has been an agreed-upon authority for over 200 years."

You talk so much about logic but you commit such basic fallacies. I refer you to http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html and http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html for further reading.

"New Yorkers are currently aggressively pursuing a ban on car alarms. New Yorkers HATE that crap. But yes, they do choose to live there, so they have to suffer such consequences. But like in any city, they put up with noise that has to be there, like garbage trucks. Garbage truck noise enters my home by force, but I don't mind because I don't want to live amongst heaps of garbage. Again, social contract and all that."

This ties in so well with my initial comments about different levels of personal tolerance to offensive noise that I'll just sit here and admire it.

TradeMark (otherwise know affectionately as "TM"), I'll have to get back to you tomorrow.

Doc if you email me, I'll reply there too. I cant check email here, so I'll just reply here and check at home as well.

I didnt revise. I said what if they wanted quiet prayer day. That is perfectly fine. I said 'prayer' so that you know WHY they're asking for Sunday to be quiet (cos I dont think god ever made rules about decibel levels on the sacred day). All Im trying to show you, is that its quiet possible for a group of religously minded to make up their own idea of "fair and reasonable hours and decibel levels".

You ask if its ok to blare music and obscenitys at our houses under the proposed liberatarian model. I'll answer, but obviously itd sound better coming from Drizz. As has already been said, libertarian society would not be an anarchist one. Individuals would work together and communities could propose their own commonly agreed-upon rules. If one of those rules is "no noise above x level of decibels after xpm" or "no using obscenitys loud enough that you can be heard from 20 feet away", then the answer is no. You cannot blare your loud music and obscenties at our windows, cos the community would come together and ask you leave.

If the community decided it was amusing or a good demonstration of freedom etc, you may well find that blasting crap at our windows would be deemed acceptable. Just as blasting crap at YOUR windows would be EQUALLY acceptable.

I look forward to Drizz's answer as well. Did you have any other questions? (keep in mind Im NOT libertarian, and not in love with Drizz's conclusion even if I agree with it).

Gil, all I have time to say at the moment is that I disagree with your idea of libertarianism's essence. I'd revise your words and replace them all with the Nonaggression Principle ( http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html ) which I'm sure you've heard of. Anything more diluted than that, and the door is opened to all manner of illiberalism.

Drizz,

I have a lot of respect for Ayn Rand's works, and I think that the NAP is a great general guideline. But, I'm confident that it fails to capture the whole of morality.

See this article

http://tinyurl.com/37gth

for an example (relating to the war on terrorism), and my post here

http://tinyurl.com/3eqk9

that led me to find it.

It would be nice if everything could be contained in a simple rule, but the world is messier than that and we need to stay flexible and open to criticism in order for our knowledge to grow.

You might want to check out this book:

http://tinyurl.com/353tw

for a more critical-rationalist, Popperian, approach to libertarian theory and more on the idea of "imposing costs" that I mentioned in my earlier post.

I appreciate your concern for avoiding a slippery slope, but that's not a sufficient reason to insist that what's wrong is right. And a dogmatic application of the NAP is wrong.

I think there is objective morality and I think we can approach moral truths, just as we can approach physical truths, through an honest process of conjecture and refutation, and not by adhering to dogma.

This is something that Rand got wrong.

You are the ultimate hypocrites. You'll go to extreme lengths to denounce public roads, but you drive on them every day. You obey traffic laws (I presume) to the same extent the rest of us do, and if someone runs a red light and hits you, you don't get out and say "forget about it, brother - this street and this street light are ambiguous property! Have a nice day!" Hell no, you would be in a rage, calling the police and using the full powers of the collective society around you.

Your answers (the libertarians) all seem to boil down to "public ownership is unacceptable, therefore I'm not going to respect it." But do you ever DO anything to create the type of society you want? Why haven't any libertarians banded together to purchase land and build a libertarian city without any public ownership, no city government, just pure private enterprise and private ownership of everything?

With you guys everything has to turn into a philosophy exhibition. That's why your brand/s of libertarianism will never be what a society is ordered on. Even children can get a decent grasp of what things like the Declaration of Independence and the Constituion are saying, but children (or dumb adults) can't read your philosophical tomes or debate subtle nuances of various theories. What, once a Libertarian society comes into being, is everyone to spend years of their lives carefully studying all the words of your heros like Rand? That's what it will amount to if people are to comprehend the lives and culture the find themselves in. You will end up with a state religion on your hands even though you started out vehemently anti-religion. The United States has managed to avoid state religions thanks to a rather simple Constitution. You are free to fantasize about a libertarian society, but thankfully the other 99.9% of us can happily drive on public roads.

You make radical statements in expounding your views, but then when someone comes along to debate, you sit here nitpicking on words. Case in point - Drizz has to object to my statement about "a more perfect society," because perfection is impossible. Well NO SHIT, SHERLOCK! Did I say anything about perfection being possible? I said "more perfect," which obviously meant "closer to perfect." I could have said "better." So what?

Your answers always end up basically coming back to exactly the situation that exists in today's United States. Look at Ken in his last post:

"Individuals would work together and communities could propose their own commonly agreed-upon rules. If one of those rules is "no noise above x level of decibels after xpm" or "no using obscenitys loud enough that you can be heard from 20 feet away", then the answer is no. You cannot blare your loud music and obscenties at our windows, cos the community would come together and ask you leave." [--Ken]

Communities already do that. You're describing noise ordinances, Ken.

Someone finally answered me about sound being force. Drizz says: "Therefore, I would take the position that music can be loud enough to constitute physical violence against a person and that person's property. Read the above. At volumes lower than that, as long as the person isn't on someone's property who has a personal noise ordinance on it, then it's all open." But Drizz, you haven't defined violence. Uh oh, better go crack open some Ayn Rand, analyze it for a few years and come back with an answer to "What is Violence?" Write an essay on it. While you're doing that, people are suffering from sound abuse.

You try to make things black and white, but perpetually run into gray areas. First you say "As long as I'm not using force against you, I'm free to do as I please on public property." Then when I bring up the fact that sound is force, and you're forcing your shit into my house, you change your tune and it's a matter of VIOLENCE. But what is violence? There's a huge spectrum of violence. What's violent to a flea might be un-noticable to you.

Erik, Drizz, Ken - you're all flailing. I find it amusing. We're talking about a very artificial problem. I mean, it's a real problem, but the phenomena involved are so artificial. We won't always drive cars. Humans will evolve past that (or we'll run out of oil - I can't wait!). Hopefully the booming bass thing is a fad. Musical tastes are fads. Hell, this ISN'T and never will be an issue in remote areas of the earth without cars and roads, where the REAL people live. The whole phenomenon of ultra-loud bass disturbing others is such a transient thing. If you're so into philosophy, why not concern yourselves with more universal issues? If someone reads this blog 200 years from now, they probably won't have a clue what we're talking about - the word "subwoofer" probably won't be a part of their lexicon! Meanwhile, admirable thinkers are remembered 200 years later because they wrote about universal problems. Yeah, inter-relations with neighbors is a universal problem, but this particular relationship with neighbors is simply an absurdity! You are taking part in an absurd fad. The reason I come in here and spend time on it is because I feel like a characer in a Kafka novel when I'm subjected to the grotesque racket of a booming bass! Why are you taking part in this? To defend a high-minded philsophy? If you want to do philosphy, move on to other topics because you won't get anywhere defending booming bass stereos. Seriously, why are you so passionate about this cause? Do you think you'll be into booming bass 5 years from now? Probably not. A few infantile retards will keep doing it into old age, but I'm guessing you guys won't. You're intelligent people, so I know you'll move on and grow out of it. Now, a universal issue on neighbor relations is something like, oh... the statement "love your neighbor as you love yourself." Take a stance on that. Write volumes on the Golden Rule, pro or con. Or come up with an original idea.

Up next - overpopulation.

I haven't seen anyone go to extreme lengths to denounce public roads yet. Arguing on the basis of private property as the only logically acceptable kind of property hardly seems extreme. Sure, it's not a very widely accepted view, but acceptance has nothing to do with extremity.

Driving on a public road while denouncing it doesn't make you a hypocrite. If I had a moral opposition to people's using the public roads, yet used them myself, THEN I'd be a hypocrite. However, people DO contribute to the road system in the form of taxes, the roads ARE there, so there is no problem with using them.

You know, I remember hearing something about some liberty-loving people buying property on the ocean and setting up a tiny town free of coercion. Other than that, I don't think many people have tried to create said libertarian cities, but that could be due to the fact that the government would still interfere with them, thereby COMPLETELY defeating the purpose of starting one. Doing it would involve getting the consent of the government to leave you alone about taxes and such, which isn't likely to happen.

I fail to see where your ideas about a state religion come in. Pretty much the entire population would have to fundamentally agree with the society, but that's a given. It's not something that would be forced on them after the government was in place, but instead a prerequisite for the government's formation.

Actually, I take offense on Drizz's behalf for your remark about studying Rand. None of the libertarian-minded people here actually STUDY Rand. Sure, Gil, Drizz, and I have all READ things by Ayn Rand, but that hardly makes us cultist Objectivists that consult her writings for the "proper" position. I believe we all have our own unique brand of libertarianism. We all agree on fundamental beliefs about individual rights and limited government, but often still end up disagreeing on more minor, nuanced issues like intellectual property rights involved in downloading music. There isn't some omniscient authority we all consult. Instead, we have a certain set of base beliefs, and tend to be influenced by some particular philosophers more than others, not necessarily because of an arbitrary choice to follow their advice, but instead because they are able to most rationally articulate implicit ideas and visions we already had.

You're making an error in assuming that because these problems are temporary, that they're artificial. Plenty of problems are temporary. In fact, ALL problems are temporary, or artificial, as you would label them, since we'll all die eventually and never have to worry about them. Oh how silly we'll all look to future, enlightened and apathetic generations who see us arguing with so much emotional investment over things that won't matter to us in a matter of years, anyway, since we'll all be dead.

I know from personal experience that Drizz likes his music up a little loud, but as I've said before, none of us are into "booming bass." I actually can't stand to have my music up very high. The issue is a matter of principle. I hate the smell of cigarette smoke, but vehemently oppose smoking bans in restaurants because it violates the restaurant owner's right to allow smoking on his own damn property.

Issues about noise ordinances may be very temporary themselves, but they have far-reaching consequences, whether you see them or not. The establishment of noise ordinances can lead to ridiculous ordinances later on, similar to the way tabacco lawsuits from years ago have led to lawsuits against fatty foods. That's because the issue is only superficially about the noise ordinance itself. It's really, more deeply about what rights people have to their property and what rights the government can possibly have to property and enforcement. THESE are issues that will be important as long as man has to deal with a governing body, which is to say, probably as long as man exists.

Gil, I'll probably post an entirely new thread to address the issues you raise in your comments. I hope you find it reasonable. :)

TM, I gotta delay you another day. :(

Doc, the humor I get from reading your take on my comments is enough to evaporate any anger I feel when reading them. This has been interesting.

Indeed, the reality is that just about every road I use is public and government-owned. Ditto for my entire formal education. I also have a government-issued concealed handgun permit ( http://www.drizzten.com/blargchives/000377.html ), a Texas state driver's license, I pay federal income taxes, I've dealt with the US Post Office throughout my life, and I have kept the entire menagerie of state-mandated emissions equipment on my car. Most importantly, my father retired from the US Army a full colonel so I spent the first 15 years of my life essentially on the dole of the United States citizen. I do not live a truely principled libertarian existence, one that involves no breakage of my current ideals. Part of the journey towards a better way is to start publicly stating my disagreements with the current system and the philosophy that supports it. I admit that at this time, I am unwilling to risk my money and life and freedom to ignore every law that breaks with my view of morality. Because all three can be taken away if I break those rules, precisely one of the reasons why I'm against them.

Did you hear about New Hampshire and the Free State Movement? ( http://www.freestateproject.org ) There are a number of people willing to risk wealth, convenience, and time to change things towards a more free society. I may join them one day, perhaps if Texas adopts a state income tax.

I obey some traffic laws mostly because the actions the laws criminalize *are* dangerous. The laws I don't obey are the ones that prohibit actions that I feel are safe since I am competent enough to do them without harm or injury. And as situations change, I may find myself inadvertently obeying with a law because it makes self-interested sense to do so. If someone hits me after running a red light, that person is liable for the damages he or she caused whether or not if his actions were illegal. I get the very strong sense you haven't understood anything regarding the meat of my arguement here.

In my opinion, almost everything IS a matter of philosophy and applying it consistently. What's the problem with that? As I've stated earlier, I consider a life lived without logical principles to be a life wasted and aimless. It may well be that no human society is predicated upon the ideas I champion; I would say they are certainly far too radical for 90+% of the globe. But I still consider them right.

I echo Erik's comments about reading liberty-supporting authors. I would add that the ideas are simple because they follow from easy principles. They may lead to consequences that some or many find objectionable, but that's the way things work. And your comment that such a society would almost require a "state religion" based on Rand's work is funny because the idea is absurd. Surely you've read enough Rand (you keep mentioning her...) to know that nothing in her philosophy supports the concept. Yes, you probably mean religion in the sense that the people who would live in such a society would need to adhere to a few basic rules and to understand the reasons behind those rules, you'd need to agree with some philosophical concepts...meaning a great majority of people would place great value in certain ideas, mimicking a religion.

But it would lack all the nasty stuff, like going to a hell and damnation and whatnot.

Yes, you can continue thankfully using the public resources at your disposal. Just keep in mind while you're using them that those resources belonged to individuals at one time and a significant portion of them were taken and used without permission. I hope you go around every day thanking strangers for their forced generosity.

Your comment regarding Ken's statements again demonstrates you haven't grasped the points Erik and I are making. Unless he meant otherwise, the community Ken talked about is a *voluntary association* of people who come together and unanimously agree to set up some rule for their property. The noise ordinances you are talking about are NOT voluntary; they are imposed from the government whether everyone agrees with them or not. The focus here is the voluntary aspect of the deal, not the similarities between goals or methods to achieve them.

Doc, I'm getting tired of your deliberately insulting dismissal of my comments with some snide remark about Rand. You skipped useful discussion of my points. After repeatedly exhorting us to address yours, I had expected more from you. You didn't bring this up as if no one here had never considered it: just look at my very first post. I also briefly discussed the varying magnitudes of force and how to respond to them.

When I drive by your home with my music just loud enough to be heard or felt outside my car, that constitutes a deliberate application of physical force against the objects around my car, including your eardrums. Such is the nature of all soundwaves. In this context though, violence is different from mere force. The levels of force I'm talking about do indeed impact other peoples' objects, but they don't cause any harm. That's what I meant by physical violence. It's a different way to say "force forefull enough to cause damage." So I'll give you this: music loud enough to rattle and move things would constitute a violation of property rights. Therefore, I could be persuaded into saying such activity could be considered wrong. I'll backtrack on this a bit for the moment. I'm unsure of where to take this further and don't want to make any mistakes saying something I don't truely mean.

Doc, I pick the things that I consider worth commenting on. As I read this article, before I had any intention of making a post out of it, I do what I always do when reading things like this: I attemtped to see what drives the people involved to make the choices and statements they do. I want to know why people do and say the things they do, particularly when it involves the government and freedom. Believe me, noise ordinances are far down any list of important things in my mind. It's peanuts compared to other subjects. But it grew to the size it is now because 1) you and others have kept the discussion going and 2) the root issues driving this are so fundamental that they impact many, many other things...and that's exactly why I find these stories worth commenting upon. These issues ARE universal, even if the specific topics seem banal and local. And that's why I react so passionately to these things. Once you wipe away the specific topical stuff, what's left are the same questions and problems in most conflicts.

I take the side of freedom in just about every situation, Doc. If that isn't a universal then I don't know what is.

And FOR_FUCK