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'S_SAKE, will you stop and listen to at least this: I don't blast my stereo loud enough to disturb others outside my car. I DON'T LIKE DOING THAT. Damn, man. How many times must I mention this?

If you want me to take a stand on your maxim, fine. I'll love my neighbor to the extent he or she gives me reason to love him. I won't unconditionally love anyone. I meet my own expectations differently from other people, so why should I fake it?

Erik, I think you might be talking about Sealand ( http://www.sealandgov.com/ ) and HavenCo ( http://www.havenco.com/ ).

Okay, Drizz. Now you admit that if someone's noise is loud enough to physically rattle or shake my property, then it's wrong. Hey, even if my china isn't rattling, MY EARDRUM IS. What kind of a silly distinction are you trying to make here? A human body part is less important than inanimate objects? That's what you're saying. You've trapped yourself in a gigantic contradiction. Also, what exactly is so wrong about some shaking? All along here you've been going on at length about how we should not get into the business of banning nuicances. I'm sure some people would consider rattling china just a minor nuicance, if the china doesn't break. Some other people would be annoyed as hell if a sound rattled their china. HOW IS IT DIFFERENT FROM RATTLING AN EARDRUM? Either way you've rattled something, but probably haven't broken it. And both are my property.

Then you want to talk about "voluntary associations" of people. Buddy, every place besides a prison where two or more people gather - in the United States at least - IS a voluntary association. The US itself is a voluntary association. You're free to renounce your citizenship and leave, right? Just like you're free to NOT live in any particular city. This fact alone legitimizes the existence of noise ordinances. The people of a certain city, acting freely as citizens of the US enact noise ordinances - for good reasons. It's not like Big Brother is coercing us into having ordinances.

At the same time, life on earth is an involuntary association of people, isn't it. We didn't ask be born. Now, here's where we get to more subtle thinking. Are there any frontiers left on the Earth? No. Can you and a bunch of other like-minded people sail away, find ungoverned property and start a new nation? Can you, in wide open Texas, walk out into the seemingly free and open countryside and just live as you want to? The answer to both of these questions is NOT VERY LIKELY. The entire earth, or at least all the reasonably accomodating spaces, is owned and governed. In Texas, or in any state, the open spaces are privately owned or government owned. Either way, try camping out and living freely off the land - you might get away with it for a little while, but eventually you'll be arrested, moved, deported or something. I have a link for a real example of what I'm talking about:

http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/nav_includes/story.cfm?storyID=72810

What do I think of that? I'm disgusted by it. I support freedom too, Drizz - I think to a greater extent than you do. This is the sense in which the Earth is overpopulated. We're all stuck in societies. We all must compromise. It's fun to think about ideals, perfect freedom, a pure society of altruists, etc. The reality is the world of today doesn't allow perfect freedom.

There are other senses of "overpopulation" as well. I doubt any of you will take them seriously, but here goes: the Earth cannot support 6+ billion people all living the energy-intensive lifestyle of the average American. Examine fossil fuel supplies, pollution, degradation of soil, destruction of biodiversity (look into ocean fish populations, for example).

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/
http://dieoff.org/

A more interesting view of freedom is to consider human potential. Are we hoping for future Einsteins and Mozarts to help us acheive a better life than we have today? Perhaps longer lifespans, perhaps leaving the Earth and colonizing other solar systems? Well, the phony bullshit culture of booming bass stereos is DESTRUCTIVE toward these higher goals. Children raised in neighborhoods blighted by these activities are no doubt put at a mental disadavantage by the constant distractions of the noisy, selfish society around them. Are potential Einsteins being stillborn by the sickening culture they find themselves raised in? We'll never know, but it seems possible to me. In that sense, we SHOULD spend our time trying to figure out how to make life more livable for everyone so all are free to pursue their talents to the farthest limits. Noise statutes are definitely a first step, and a correct step in striving for an enlightened society and a better future.

Doc, your argument has gotten inordinately absurd. If the mere vibration of the eardrum constitutes physical violence, then we're all criminals. Might as well just turn ourselves in. Would you impose noise ordinances on how loud children may talk and yell while they play? How loud power tools may be, how loud emergency sirens may be, how loud engines may be?

You know, if a physical stimulus can be counted as violence, then what about unwanted images? Haven't you now assaulted me by posting things which are then PHYSICALLY act on my eyes?

Not only that, but since even all emotions are sensations that are activated and felt physically, maybe emotional distress of any kind should be considered assault.

Erik, Drizz said it himself. Vibrating someone else's private property to the point that it moves is wrong. He should answer your queries.

Well, okay, I'll answer a few. Yeah, there should be laws against noisy power tools, and there are in most residential zones. Thanks to noise ordinances, I don't have to be woken up at 6:00am by some jackass with a leafblower every other day! Children? They're a natural part of life. Reasonable people often complain to the parents of loud children, justifiably so. Besides, all the sounds you guys have brought up are of normal frequency. If I want to drown out children with earplugs, or by playing my TV or radio, I can do so. But low-frequency subwoofer bass CANNOT be drown out. Ear plugs do nothing. A stereo in my house does nothing unless I blast it unreasonably. You can always hear that sickening dull bass thump over ALL other noises. Face it - it's an unusual sound and a menace. Sirens? We all tolerate it because when a day comes that we need to be rescued, we want the opportunity to be saved.

By the way, THANK YOU so much for bringing up sirens. It is rumored that at least one person has died in an ambulance because some bass addict couldn't hear sirens from within his rolling sufwoofer of a car, and thusly he blocked the passage of the ambulance. I'm not sure if the story is apocryphal or not, but this is YET ANOTHER serious argument for banning unreasonable subwoofer noise - you threaten our safety by having crap up so loud when you drive. How can you safely drive when you can't hear horns or sirens? You support a practice that destroys the effectiveness of sirens, but then challenge me with an idiotic suggestion that I might want to ban sirens - CLASSIC! Sirens = civilization. Booming bass = irresponsible threat.

Trade-y, you are correct that I begin with the axiomatic stance that each of us have a right to our lives. I own myself and you own yourself. The degree to which this belief has been adhered to is what sets the United States and our society apart from nearly all others. American society's loyalty to this idea is best expressed in the beloved exclaimation we heard in school so often by those getting punished: "But it's a free country!"

I cannot speak for Erik, but my derision of the term and idea denoted by "society" is reserved mostly for when people attempt to use the notion as a way to revoke, deny, or restrict the abovementioned right. Society exists, as do individuals and the right to life (RtL, for simplicity's sake), does not just end at that initial point. That right implies the logical corollaries of rights to liberty and property. Labeling something a "right" is the first step in defending it within the context of society, to place it outside the bounds of human interference.

I don't see how you can say (correct me if I'm wrong) rights do not exist unless they are defended and protected by society. Would you say that no RtL existed during a Communist purge of domestic suspects - that the individuals affected by the purges didn't have a right to themselves because society both refused to stand up for them and the powers running the game spared no thought of it? I would disagree quite strongly. The RtL cannot be suspended because society doesn't respect it.

Now, I'm not a market anarchist and I do believe there exists a useful purpose for government: it's the entity that prosecutes violations of rights and lays out clear and unambiguous terms for those violations and what they are. Having said that, there does exist a body of thought that argues for the private sector in these matters and I'm not willing to hang my hat up on that stance yet. But for the time being, I take your side in a basic sense. It's the extent that I feel we disagree on.

I'm having trouble picking out an arguement on your last paragraph in your first comment. It seems you agree that people have a right to their lives and to their property. My stance is that the bass-blasters own their property, granting them the right to do what they want with it provided they don't violate the rights of others. Simple enough. But does the very act of producing sound waves initiate force against innocent bystanders, thereby violating their rights? As I have indicated in the past, I say this question's answer hinges on the magnitude of the sound and the kind of results produced. At this point, I have trouble going further because either I'm missing something or I'm arguing from bad premises. Reading your comments hasn't convinced me of either yet.

My concepts of "life" and the "individual" cannot be explained until you describe the context of your questioning. Admittedly, your concepts were ones I was unable to grasp fully.

"Now you admit that if someone's noise is loud enough to physically rattle or shake my property, then it's wrong. Hey, even if my china isn't rattling, MY EARDRUM IS. What kind of a silly distinction are you trying to make here? A human body part is less important than inanimate objects? That's what you're saying. You've trapped yourself in a gigantic contradiction."

Doc, I realize this sounds weird. I'm bumping up against a mental wall (I've never debated noise ordinances before) on this topic. I don't want to draw arbitrary distinctions; I want the deeper principles to guide proper action. I arrived at this point because my convictions say that each person has property rights and it is wrong to ban action that doesn't violate individual rights. I've kept with this for so long because if I give in and agree with you that the state (through it's societal decision-making organs) can restrict our freedom to play music as loud as we want because it bothers some people, it opens the rhetorical door to a whole host of other instances where the state can come in and regulate behavior.

"All along here you've been going on at length about how we should not get into the business of banning nuicances. I'm sure some people would consider rattling china just a minor nuicance, if the china doesn't break. Some other people would be annoyed as hell if a sound rattled their china. HOW IS IT DIFFERENT FROM RATTLING AN EARDRUM? Either way you've rattled something, but probably haven't broken it. And both are my property."

You've got me on this and I admit it.

"Then you want to talk about "voluntary associations" of people. Buddy, every place besides a prison where two or more people gather - in the United States at least - IS a voluntary association. The US itself is a voluntary association. You're free to renounce your citizenship and leave, right? Just like you're free to NOT live in any particular city. This fact alone legitimizes the existence of noise ordinances. The people of a certain city, acting freely as citizens of the US enact noise ordinances - for good reasons. It's not like Big Brother is coercing us into having ordinances."

Yes, I could move to a place where there are no noise ordinances and feel better about myself. I could try and find a place where my freedom to act is greater. No one is literally forcing me to remain in Austin, in Texas, or in the United States. I choose to live here because I haven't chosen to leave. Does that mean I accept every law I live under as just and moral? No. Part of my responsiblity to myself is to better the various environments I exist in. Therefore, I advocate changes in the law while living under it.

The article on Thomas J. Crawford and his cave on public property was interesting. I certainly support him and his choice to do what he did. And I'm very amazed you can say you think you support freedom to a greater extent that I do but make it plain you support a democracy's decision to limit freedom through majority rule.

The only instances where I could be convinced I "must" compromise on some stances is when my life, freedom, and property are in jeopardy and even then each situation demands a different response and compromise. I'm aware of the reality here and I don't envision anything "pure" in my ideal society other than the kinds of laws that would be in power. It would be beyond impossible to accomplish what I want without cooperation and understanding and that is currently and foreseeably in short supply.

"A more interesting view of freedom is to consider human potential."

Being unhindered to choose what to do and think is what I define freedom as. Human potential, therefore, is dependent upon being free to achieve it.

"Are we hoping for future Einsteins and Mozarts to help us acheive a better life than we have today? Perhaps longer lifespans, perhaps leaving the Earth and colonizing other solar systems? Well, the phony bullshit culture of booming bass stereos is DESTRUCTIVE toward these higher goals. Children raised in neighborhoods blighted by these activities are no doubt put at a mental disadavantage by the constant distractions of the noisy, selfish society around them. Are potential Einsteins being stillborn by the sickening culture they find themselves raised in? We'll never know, but it seems possible to me. In that sense, we SHOULD spend our time trying to figure out how to make life more livable for everyone so all are free to pursue their talents to the farthest limits. Noise statutes are definitely a first step, and a correct step in striving for an enlightened society and a better future."

Your predjudices are beginning to poison your arguements as well as mine, Doc. All this talk about "phony bullshit culture" and "noisy selfish society" tell me you have a view of the world and it needs to be imposed upon those who aren't smart enough yet to figure it out. That isn't freedom nor a place I wish to be. "Making life more liveable" is a euphemism for arresting and fining those people who bother you.

"Yeah, there should be laws against noisy power tools, and there are in most residential zones. Thanks to noise ordinances, I don't have to be woken up at 6:00am by some jackass with a leafblower every other day!"

This and your arguement involving sirens reek strongly of appealing to consequences ( http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html ). Something isn't right merely because you think the outcome is good. The owner of that leafblower might feel the outcome is bad and by using your reasoning, should push for the repeal of that noise ordinance. And if you are going to use air vibrations against my stance and Erik's, you can't dismiss some sounds as part of a "normal frequency" any more than I can draw a distinction between "moving" and object and "damaging" it.

A menace is someone with a gun in your face, Doc. Low bass would have to be EXTREMELY powerful in order to quality for that label. It's a nuisance, it's irritating, and it's annoying...yes. But a true menace - a true "irresponsible threat" - would be the vehicle barreling towards your home without functioning brakes and a drunk driver. Semantics are important to me because you are attempting to demonize elements of my side's arguement and the demonization involves personal preference.

Emergency sirens bug the hell out of me. I used to live down the road from a fire department station and at least once a night the neighborhood would erupt into piercing noise for 30 seconds as it navigated the streets to the highway. Why should I be subjected to that - at any hour of the day no less? Yeah, it isn't the same as a basshead's noise but it is unwanted noise and by your definition should be on the table for banning.

Anyway, I doubt either of us will agree on this.

“In my opinion, almost everything IS a matter of philosophy and applying it consistently.”

Huzzah - my current educational track is not as useless and unviable as some would claim! Much love my burn-brother for a validation.

The focus of my argument is on the RtL, what the RtL necessarily implicates, and how these are both inseparable from a communal agreement incorporating practicing participants (which is “SOCIETY”)

Initially, the highlight on the definition of “LIFE” was to bring out the necessity of those peripheral components- property and liberty (which I take as volition, or a conscious action unfettered by express threat). So the word “LIFE” in the RtL has to incorporate both the physiological idea of life, as well as these ideological add-ons. From the previous posts, I see the entirety of posters likewise would grant this encompassing idea. If there are any criticisms to this basic sketch of the RtL by which we, as awesome, posit as underlying all facets of our own lives, then I’d like to hear them. If there are objections, you’re either a commie (against property ownership) or an ass (no really, you should bleed).

Using this given RtL as a basis is lovely, however it does require a few supplemental aids- first, the creation/definition, second, the sustainment, and third, the enforcement. I believe these three aspect of the RtL are necessity, without which the RtL would be an empty term. Where it could be said that the initial point, creation/definition of the RtL could fall on the shoulders of an single maker, that would be an ignoring of the interconnectedness of all things, and how the “INDIVIDUAL” comes out.

In using the term “INDIVIDUAL”, I was attempting to give a broad enough definition of the commonly considered ‘person’ so the arguments would pertain to the same reasoning. Obviously, I didn’t want to turn the debate in to a query of the ‘self’ or such, rather I wanted to be sure that people were considered as self-autonomous in a sense, but also include and indeed highlight the importance of “SOCIETY” (as interaction with others, shaping of concepts, etc.) on the consideration of the “INDIVIDUAL”. Without the sociological influence, the “INDIVIDUAL” would not be recognizable as such, lacking the attribution of the RtL.

The RtL MUST be considered a sociological term, it stems from the interaction of individuals within a communal structure The RtL is spawned from a society for the benefit of the society (protecting its constituents), the individual benefit of the RtL is directly related to the ideological basis a society provides and nurtures. Summed up, the sociological interaction of individuals brings about the theory, the theory is instilled into the other members and sustains itself trough application and education.

The RtL is only really feasible however, if there is an enforcement of its principles. If the RtL was only a personal mantra and a complete relativism allowed to reign as the only ethical code, then there would be no actual reason to abide by the doctrine. The RtL is superimposed (hah, a superimposed supposed infrastructure, that’s hilarious) upon the world of interaction as a force of guaranteeing individual freedoms with the threat of reprisal of a coordinated means (i.e. governing body or system) so that the individual can be granted the maximum individuality with respect to the rights of other individuals.

Here is where noise ordinances and socio-political affiliation come in, the measure of individual freedoms to the protection thereof. How much can be allowed in the actions of one upon the world before the actions infringe on another individual’s RtL. This is all encompassed within a societal framework (that being the rules of conduct and interaction of parties)- this is inherent to the advanced interaction of our time and the term “SOCIETY” itself. Perhaps it could be argued that in some more primal time the interaction between individuals could side step a sociological designation, but that would have to be a helluva discussion. I will not delve too deeply into the difficult and ambiguous ground of deligating specific lines to mark the difference between harmful interaction and interaction- that is an intensely indepth discussion for another time (though I am certainly not adverse to such a thing, mmm thinky…) so the basic matter of noise ordinance’s will be exemplary of the ideology.

A residence would likely be considered under the ‘property’ segment of the RtL, correct? And further, the definition of what ‘property’ entails to the owner. Ownership immediately springs to mind. As owner, I’d obviously have specific concerns about the outside influences that would inflict themselves upon my property. There are, of course, factors far beyond the reach of the individual that affect the property- weather and time, natural events, as well as the composition of the property and how that is uniquely affected by the situation at hand, stress factors therein, etc.- The property is subject to the interconnectedness of the world just as the individual is. At what point does the infliction of outside influence upon the individual’s property breach the “social contract” (nod to Doc) that is established under the RtL?

I find it to be the case that the property rights in question (perhaps under assault?) would be evaluated on the criterion of purpose. Obviously a car is going to suffer wear from the action of driving, and clothing will deteriorate upon exposure to harsh weather. Both are suffering in order to fulfill their intended purpose under the hand of the owner. Now when the car is damaged or the clothing torn due to the actions of another I believe the RtL extends the property rights of the individual to compensation. This is however, another assumption. I assume the responsibility of an individual’s actions to belong primarily to the individual and that the RtL protects my property with an ‘assurance’ (ideological worlds can get away with such a word without causing giggles, unlike reality) that I’m granted the right to actively demand compensation. It should be noted that this belief is centered on the social contract the RtL entails. I automatically assume that the other party also adheres to the RtL, even if they might not. For all I know, the man who just cut the roof off my car in order to make a lovely planter for his home is from the land of “Imposition and Acquisition”. But we’re in the USA now, and as such, I’ve been instilled with the fundamental beliefs of property and the RtL. Though the initial action was not prevented, the RtL has a connotation of reimbursement, hell, it could be argued as carrying a ‘revenge’ mindset. (Damn, this is getting long and spinning off so many other topics, I’m starting to see how books on theory can be so long, I’m going to have to finish this later)

To be continued…

Hey, maybe we can make this the longest blog ever. Keep up the great work, Drizz and TM. But what happened to hiigaran? He sure seemed to have an attitude in the couple of little challenges he threw out - but where did he get off to?

Thanks for conceding a point, Drizz. In exchange, I will finally state that I never meant to lump you in personally with the mega-bass freaks. I guess I did that with the "your ilk" comment, but honestly I more meant car-audiophiles as your ilk. I meant when I encounter such a person in traffic who IS blasting their bass, then blah blah... And since you're defending their "right" to do such, I called them your ilk. In no way would I accuse you of purposefully being annoying or of being like the "Nazi" thugs I mentioned who gladly annoy people and who are probably violent criminals to boot.

Now, I have to take exception on another point: from your 1/10 post: "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."

I've heard this line of argument dozens of times, often from avowed libertarians. I don't buy it, and I think it's a cheap shot, really. There ARE some cases where citizens are ripped off by emminent domain. It sucks, and I wouldn't defend that, but I would venture to guess that's a rare circumstance, and most people do get a fair payment on emminent domain purchases. However, for the majority of other government transactions, there is no force or coersion involved. Our national debt is the result of most contractors who deal with Uncle Sam RIPPING OFF the taxpayers. A huge number of bellyaching conservatives are actually wealthy in large part to the military-industrial complex being the government's pimp daddy. Again, it amounts to ELECTING to be a citizen of the United States. If you feel that taxes are a genuine theft, then leave the country. But there are no thefts. You speak like all public property was illegally confiscated, when in reality the government bought most of what is "public," and the purchases more often than not enrich the contractors who do the selling.

I respect your quest for truth, freedom, and having a vision of what a better society is. I wish more people were as concerned about these things. HOWEVER... you say that I have "prejudices" shining through (okay, I'll grant that - and I think it interesting that you admitted your own prejudices are shining through - want to elaborate?). I say in response, sure, I do have prejudices, and I am willing to fight for them. Your problem is a lack of force in your arguments because you aren't doing anything for what you believe in. You say things like "I am unwilling to risk my money and life and freedom to ignore every law that breaks with my view of morality," in explaining why you work and exist within a society that is so far from your ideal. But then a few lines down you're speaking like some sort of Promethian rebel: "I consider a life lived without logical principles to be a life wasted and aimless." So contradictory. Now, if you actually started some sort of tax-rebellion movement, or any type of struggle against the system, and you risked something for these principles, I would hold some grudging admiration for your movement.

The essay you wrote that started this conversation was thoughtful. I spoke up because when I see words as strong as what you say in the last couple of sentences, I want to know more about exactly what the speaker is doing to back up such a sweeping proclomation! You don't seem to be doing much in that line, so I'm disappointed. I predict you'll continue to expound on these ideas, but will continue to work within the system. You probably have a mutual fund that will build to some value. You'll buy a home, mortgaging yourself to our corporate masters. You'll continue to pay taxes, and eventually you'll be too old and entrenched in your ways to ever dream of changing anything. Tell me this won't happen!

I lost the interest to argue about a week ago. This seems to be a yearly winter-break thing for me, sadly. Give me a week and a half, when I'm back to school and I'll probably be up to resume the fight. Keep it warm for me 'til then.

Holy shit, you guys are still at it. Goddamn. I cant even read all this atm. Might need to save the link so I can watch it for future replies.

You're a grand nutty bastard, Tommy. I may have to respond in a seperate post as I plan on doing with Gil.

Doc, thanks for the de-lumping. I do enjoy mobile audio loud enough to drown out the sounds of the roads and vehicles around me, but never to the point where others outside would be aware of it.

"There ARE some cases where citizens are ripped off by emminent domain. It sucks, and I wouldn't defend that, but I would venture to guess that's a rare circumstance, and most people do get a fair payment on emminent domain purchases. However, for the majority of other government transactions, there is no force or coersion involved."

Certainly. I may regard the government as a worrisome thing, but not everything it does is vile and not everyone operating within it acts with malice. What I said is a cheap shot but one that I feel must be mentioned whenever it begins to feel like the person I'm talking to doesn't understand the full depth of my distaste for the way things currently are. It is truely amazing just how much we as a people get from the government. I remember the first time I realized people get free roads in this country. I also remember the first time my father explained to me (after I told him this) that those roads aren't "free" in any sense, that it just appears that way since you and I don't directly pay for their use. Toll roads, of course, being an exception.

"Our national debt is the result of most contractors who deal with Uncle Sam RIPPING OFF the taxpayers. A huge number of bellyaching conservatives are actually wealthy in large part to the military-industrial complex being the government's pimp daddy."

No doubt. I have no sympathy or love for so-called fiscal conservatives who will denouce pork-barrel spending one minute and stump for staggering amounts of money for national defense. Yeah, it is expensive to defend a country as large, diverse, and open as ours...but the amount of annual defense appropriations waste alone is enough to fund whole projects. The system is rotten.

"Again, it amounts to ELECTING to be a citizen of the United States. If you feel that taxes are a genuine theft, then leave the country. But there are no thefts. You speak like all public property was illegally confiscated, when in reality the government bought most of what is "public," and the purchases more often than not enrich the contractors who do the selling."

Like I said, I choose to remain here, aware of how things work and of what my beliefs are. This really is a topic for another thread (this one is getting unwieldy), but when you say taxes aren't theft, imagine this senario:

It's Tax Day, 2004. Throughout the last fiscal year, I witheld no income for federal taxes and earned no other income that could be reported as taxable. I would be mailed a tax bill for the amount I owe. In 2003, it was about $1,800. So for simplicity's sake, let's say I owe $2,000 in federal income taxes this year. But this year, I decide to stand up for my principles and not pay anything. Even bolder, I mail a letter to the IRS, my representatives, and the President explaining why I choose not to pay. What do you think happens? Criminal action that would ultimately result in my arrest and the levying of a fine and jail time. Should I refuse to pay that, they'll eventually just seize my property to pay the bill.

At the end of all these laws rests the true nature of the state: coercive power. I could move away and avoid this even though it isn't likely any other country is much better. I could withdraw from society and live on my own...but didn't you say you were disgusted by people making that decision? Regardless, I feel the US is the only nation worth fighting for from the inside because it has the necessary (as described by TM) philosophical preconditions for what I envision.

Jesus, I sound like a freakin' martyr or something. This is just me and my opinions published online. I lack the courage to follow through on everything I believe in because I want to avoid the unpleasantries associated with standing against a tide that could overwhelm me if it pleased. I'd rather supply rhetorical and argumentative ammo, even though it's obvious I haven't quite gotten everything straightened out yet.

"I think it interesting that you admitted your own prejudices are shining through - want to elaborate?"

I am reflexively against government involvement in my life. I recoil from ideologies that promote altruism over self-interest. I simply don't like being literally told what to do when the reasons for that demand don't follow logically from moral principles.

"I spoke up because when I see words as strong as what you say in the last couple of sentences, I want to know more about exactly what the speaker is doing to back up such a sweeping proclomation! You don't seem to be doing much in that line, so I'm disappointed."

Actually, in their own context, those final words in my first post make plenty of sense. I said: 'In my opinion, anyone who calls him- or herself a friend of freedom should support the abolishment of noise ordinances in all stripes and forms.' Noise ordinances restrict freedom and those people who wish to uphold freedom should oppose them. In this context, the freedom I speak of is absolute, the freedom from all coercion, all action imposed on people against their will.

"I predict you'll continue to expound on these ideas, but will continue to work within the system. You probably have a mutual fund that will build to some value. You'll buy a home, mortgaging yourself to our corporate masters. You'll continue to pay taxes, and eventually you'll be too old and entrenched in your ways to ever dream of changing anything. Tell me this won't happen!"

I can only say what I've said before: at this time in my life, I am unwilling to truely stand up and do something that would make a difference beyond speaking my mind and ignoring some of the petty laws. I have no corporate masters; it is my goal to have masters of no kind. I realize that the things I support and don't support are deeply unpopular once you explain them to the public. For that reason alone, any effort I'd expend on changing things (really changing things) would be wasted. People in general just aren't prepared to think this way. It would take more than a generation of steady change.

FYI: the weekend is arriving and I may not get back online for a few days. Please be patient.

Drizz's sample scenario about a citizen being arrested and prosecuted for refusing to pay taxes is worthless. I've heard numerous anti-government/anti-tax advocates repeat the same story. They tell it in dramatic fashion, sort of the way you did, using way too many words to basically say "If you refuse to pay taxes, you'll be prosecuted." How is that coersion? By your definition, all laws are coersions. Why don't you call laws against murder a form of coersion?

Break the law, risk being punished, or having property confiscated as penalty. That's part of the social contract. You don't want to live with it? Go try to live in Antarctica. The rest of us will be just fine without you.

The SIMPLEST god damn concepts just go entirely out the window with you guys. Sheesh. And when these basics are pointed out to you again and again, you just keep resorting to vaguely talking about "rights." Well, you still haven't told us WHERE these rights you believe in derive from! Face it, there are no universal authorities granting us these rights. The only real rights are the laws of the jungle. Beyond that, everything is a human construct. The only AGREED UPON human constructs are governments and constitutions. The rest - philosophers, the Bible, the Koran, novelists, political pundits, etc. - may contain beautiful theories and/or knowledge, but ultimately have no power except in how they attempt to shape our culture. If the meme of a religious or philosophical idea happens to work its way into a law - then good for that idea - YAY.

Your idea that somehow you should be able to get away with not paying taxes holds no water with anyone, and you should be penalized if you try to swindle the rest of us in that way.

If you think you have no corporate masters, think again. Can you produce your own gasoline? Where does the food on your table come from? Corporations. How was it transported to you? Corporations. Did you need a loan to buy your nifty car? You are paying interest to corporations. Do you plan to use a mortgage to buy a home? Corporations. How many corporations does the company you work for deal with? How much money does the US Gov't owe to corporate bond-holders? That's about 20% of your income tax bill right there, man. (~10% principal, ~10% interest) The government is not the enemy of freedom. Overpopulation and widespread reliance on corporations are much greater enemies of freedom. Only a handful of people in the US don't HAVE to cooperate with corporations on a daily basis to have the type of lifestyle you enjoy, cars, gasoline, and expensive stereos and subwoofers and whatnot. Those few are either lawless mountian men (who I greatly respect if they are truly independent) or the ultra rich who need not work another day and have cash to last forever. And where did that cash come from? In all likelihood it came from investment in this system that has built up around us.

Damn, I feel turrible about not being able to finish my last thought string, but i've been uber busy with these study abroad papers and am leaving for a few days. If the fun is still happening, I'll be sure to update accordingly.

But I'd like to reinforce Doc's similar conception of relativistic rights as being what I was leading up to in my last post. This is in response to Drizz's earlier question about the existance of the RtL within the commie purge, without the social basis to support it, the RtL is non-existant, only a conceptualization. It takes an active social effort to maintain the RtL, without which it becomes an entirely empty proclamation.

Although Doc, I disagree on your opinion on the power of philosophers. I know that I myself can travel through both TIME and SPACE! OOoooooOOooOOoooo spooky powers.
BOW TO ME
[b]BOW ![/b]

Well, Doc, if you want to continue talking about taxation, I'm ready for that. But it belongs in another thread. Let me know in your next reply if it's something you'd be interested in.

Have you read the links I've posted perviously regarding rights, their origins, and their corollaries? They contain my arguements. Go over them if you wish to discuss this. I will state plainly that no one should put any authority on an idea on the mere basis of it's popularity.

Doc, if I had a "corporate master," that Master would not only be telling me what to do, but forcing me to do it if I disagreed, correct? I await your demonstration that this is the case, because it isn't. It's hilarious: you think I'm FORCED to buy diesel, food, loans, etc. It is simply not true. No one forced me to make those choices and having a Master means being forced to do things I don't want to do. I made those choices voluntarily. Now, you can certainly enter into agreements with a business where they may be situations where contractual punishments may apply, but those agreements are by their very nature VOLUNTARY and it is up to the parties signing it to decide if the terms are acceptable or not.

C'mon, man, the government is not the enemy of freedom? It's very purpose, the central reason why it is considered sacrosanct to so many is because it restricts freedom for some in order to please others. That's what government does. Freedom is imperiled when I must ask for a license in order to hunt, when I can't build a kit car without state inspection, when I cannot donate to a candidate for public office during certain times of the year without facing heavy fines, when I face up to 10 years of jail time for not signing up for the fucking Selective Service. Government restricts freedom in order to provide safety and stability, neither of which it does particularly well.

Widespread reliance on voluntary choices people make in order to live their lives as they see fit is not an enemy of freedom, regardless whom those choices are made with. Overpopulation isn't a problem in countries with freer and more open markets and societies. As familes and people get richer, they no longer face the need to have more children to provide for themselves when they get older and they face fewer social pressures to avoid having children. Overpopulation is only a problem in countries just coming out of the Dark Ages of economics and governance. Those nations will come about on their own time.

I'll have a ton of time after work tomorrow to finally respond to Gil and TM and hopefully post a "final thoughts" comment here. It's such a pain in the ass having to do all this from work...

Drizz, I doubt I'll want to further debate you on taxes. Yes, I've looked at your sources. There was no need to, though. I'm a well-read person - I've been exposed to all of it before. But, let's take a closer look: on http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_Rights.html we find this gem from Ayn Rand:

"A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context."

You ignore the last four words. By saying "in a social context," Rand is essentially agreeing with ~TM and me. Rights only exist in a social context. You only see where they write things like "Rights are absolute." in boldface. Then you feel empowered, but really all you've done is cited some philosophers speaking elegantly about this notion of rights.

Where things become more tricky is when we deal with the SOCIAL CONTEXT that Rand spoke of. You want to completely ignore the social context so you can make sweeping statements and think you're living by some fantastic ideals.

As for corporate masters. I'm sure you don't feel like you have a master. Most of us don't feel that way. I think your feeling of freedom is an illusion. It's not a matter of you being forced at gunpoint to buy gasoline. It's more a matter asking "why do you live the way you live, and why does it just so happen to be SO SIMILAR to the lifestyles of almost everyone else in America?" If the major oil companies somehow started failing to deliver the amount of gasoline we need to keep things humming, let's say by a drastic amount because the Middle East suddenly became extremely hostile to the US, your lifestyle would be very rudely interrupted and you might have to deal more with the "law of the jungle" I mentioned earlier. Imagine empty freeways and people walking or biking everywhere. We would have to transform our habits overnight. Could people in the suburbs survive? Well, there's a lot of speculation involved in all of that, but the point is that you are addicted to a certain lifestyle, and it would be a harsh kick in the nuts to have it taken away or altered. Therefore we all bow down to the corporate masters who are keeping the show running. But that is all a side-note. I know we won't agree on it, but I wanted to clarify a little in case you might chew on it and see something.

Regardless, you have yet to make any sort of decent rebuttal to the last few posts from ~TM or me.

I've made a semi-formal reply to Gil here ( http://www.drizzten.com/blargchives/000695.html ) that I hope delegates the topic of dogmatic principle-application to another spot.

After reading TM's last post over a few times, I've decided we aren't that far apart on this issue. I agree that rights are a social concept and I agree they are socially useless if they are not enforced. What I don't agree with is the idea that rights don't exist without this societal action or are meaningless if society doesn't uphold them.

TM said "I will not delve too deeply into the difficult and ambiguous ground of deligating specific lines to mark the difference between harmful interaction and interaction- that is an intensely indepth discussion for another time" and thus avoids what I consider to be the primary issue being contended. At what objective point does a voluntary action violate another's RtL and that right's corollaries? I say the line is drawn at the initiation of force against another who hasn't initiated force against you. Thus, the problems I'm dealing with in the new post above.

"I find it to be the case that the property rights in question (perhaps under assault?) would be evaluated on the criterion of purpose."

Might you also say, in other words, "intent matters"? I look forward to your comment continuance.

Doc, it looks like we must remain at odds for the time being.

Indeed Drizz, we are not so different you and I, I’m like you, but with 25% more style and 30% more wit. Doc and I however, share the stance of moral Relativists whose ideals arise in response to the interaction of actual factors present. The Objectivist stance your supporters adhere to has been stuttering in the face of drawing conclusions and boundaries on which to separate an individual’s right to privacy as opposed to another’s right to action. You’ve been focused so intently on the right to action, that you’ve neglected the rights of privacy that you should be even more in favor of, for if there is to be individual liberty, is the individual not entitled to his own privacy?

I realize the distaste towards limitations on action and agree that restriction on individuals should be avoided, yet Doc and I support this only so far as the rights to action attributed to one individual infringe as little as possible on the rights of another. You’ve (I attribute so much to you yourself, as currently only you are vocal) conceded the difficulty in differentiating physical imposition upon property and the person, under the RtL the value attributed to the person should be extended to the liberty and property that assertion entails.

My avoidance of the particulars of objective lines is due to my adherence to moral relativism- there are no objective lines. I recognize my residence in a , disagreeing fundamentally with objective valuations and lines that can be drawn to separate A|B and an unchanging reality on which such valuations can be founded. What this comes down to is, yes, I do believe intention has a place in this debate, though the intention is not necessarily founded on the action of the individual, rather the application of the RtL as pertaining to the subject of property and privacy. The RtL in my eyes should be first concerned with protecting individuals from imposition, which would likewise be my resistance to restricting actions. But to propose a right to action that imposes strongly on another while they are against such action I believe to be in opposition to the RtL we’ve gone to such extent to outline. My concern is with the protection of the intent of property, where the conception of a ‘home’ would include the right to avoid unnecessary imposition upon the individual property owner.

I’m going to read over your new post and transfer the debate there after I pee and sleep.

wow it totally deleted a line from the arguement, insert *world-as-process in the space after "my residence in a " while reading.

And it screwed up my formating.

Yeah, my comp is dying. Damn you WinME.

booming autos and the children who are forced to ride in them with there ignorant parents.... on the next Maury Povich.
Does anyone think a novel approach to ridding some of this unwanted noise is to attack from a different (more serious) angle; the health of young children.
Can someone put some light on this....or maybe I should start investing on hearing aid companies in the near future.

Dude, once you cross the volume line into actually hurting the inner ears of people, I certainly won't raise objections to the audio blaster getting some sort of penalty. But ONLY the audio blaster and ONLY because it falls under assault.

You talk about this simple issue as if you were Talmudic scholars!?!
Loud thumping cars are disrespectful of every home they pass. The assholes that have them were not raised properly. Someone needs to do the job thier fathers neglected to do and give all of them a serious ass kicking! I would like to beat these losers until thier heads were soft and squishy.
I guess that makes me a "psycho idiot jerk". Well that's what thier constant thumping does to normal people.

Bill, I agree that there are levels of volume that are disrespectful to nearby people who aren't interested in listening to the music. Disrespect, however, is not and should never be grounds for making an activity illegal. Your eagerness to assault people over this indicates it is YOU who missed out on a decent and ethical upbringing.

Perhaps after you've discussed what I've written above, you'll come back with something useful to say.

Drizz once again proves himself hopeless... My god, Drizz. Why don't you for once explain what mechanism there will be in your Libertarian Paradise to protect people from each other? Your highest rule seems to be that no one can touch anyone else. The only penalties that exist in your Paradise are against violence. You are more concerned about a little bruise I might inflict on a bass-loving punk than you are about the mental illness, rage, stress, bad feelings, lost sleep, etc. caused by assholes with booming car audio systems. Why is this? What makes physical pain more serious than mental pain? Hell, all pain is mental, being merely a perception caused by chemical reactions in the brain.

To this day you have not answered my points about how loud stereos PHYSICALLY alter the environment INSIDE MY HOME - my private property. My private property is supposedly holy to you libertarians, but you defend the scum who send unreasonably intense sound waves echoing through my home and ears. You have completely lost this argument.

Some advice for you and your buddies in striving to create your fantasy world: part of personal responsibility is being responsible for how others react to your actions. We all know, though you won't admit it, that every single loser who pumps up the mega bass is doing it for ONLY one reason - to get attention from others. They get no enjoyment from the sound itself. They only get enjoyment from the attention it draws to them. Well, if this bullshit somehow gets them laid or makes them popular at a party, then I guess they've profited from their little attention-getting ploy. However, in the process, they've gotten other attention - hateful attention from the thousands of people they've annoyed. A libertarian should be able to see that if someone can profit from an action, then there might also be some risk involved. You are not free to profit by trampling the rights of others. You can't pick and choose which attention you want to accept from your actions. When Bill turns some thug's head into pulp over his booming bass, I will support and defend Bill, as will 99% of the population. Too bad for you, Drizz. In a free society, a 99 to 1 vote wins and YOU LOSE.

Doc, I'd be more willing to discuss things like this with you if you'd stop being a jerk, ignoring what I've written in the past, and assuming too many things about myself and my position. It wouldn’t hurt to refrain from endorsing violence, either.

The mechanism in my *ideal* society (you can cease with this "paradise" and "fantasy" nonsense right now - I'm under no illusions about humanity's problems) to protect people and their property would be private defense agencies, competing systems of arbitration to settle disputes, and insurance tying everything else together. I don't speak as a libertarian on this issue because they believe in limited government; I want no government. So from that perspective, I also want no laws backed by the threat of force, either.

I do care more about people aggressing against others when they have done nothing aggressive. "Aggression" doesn’t include the temporary irritation created by someone driving by. The central question is, "At what point does listening to music constitute aggression against others?" You have yet to offer an objective standard to compare this against and I ask for one now. Without such a standard, you are merely railing against something you say to be unjust but no one else can evaluate.

If you'd pause and look back, I did consider the problem of the force created by subwoofers during high volume operation. I was unable to solve that problem entirely at the time, but I was able to offer some solutions for it: private property rights enforcement, engineering solutions to combat the sound waves, and the simple acts of either enduring it or moving away. As I said previously, I'd have no issue with you bringing a suit against someone whose sound system damaged your property, e.g., by vibrating a shelf and knocking something to the floor. Obviously, I'd also have no problem with a lawsuit against someone who played music so loud as to injure your body. The area in between (occupied with what to do when someone plays sounds loudly but not loud enough to do either of the previous) is where I cannot set forth a standard. I don't have the right to *force* the annoying bastard to stop in those cases but I don't have the right to tell a property owner what to do with his property.

I'm not advocating the abandonment of personal responsibility at all. If a neighbor persists in thundering sounds from his home 24/7 and he refuses to change his behavior when his neighbors ask and attempt persuasion, then it should be expected there will be repercussions. I may disagree with those actions, but they will happen and the noisy neighbor won't get any sympathy from me.

You'd better stop right now with this outrageous choice of yours to assume you know what motivates every person to listen to music loudly. You do not, Sir. You don't know what they are thinking; only what they are doing. It's an assertion born from emotion that has no grounds in reality.

Once again, you've totally side-stepped what I've written regarding the validity of something. Quite simply, I DON'T GIVE A DAMN if everyone but me feverishly says something is true. That doesn't matter to the truthfulness of the belief - AT ALL.

But you know what? If Bill decides to kill someone because that person's music is too loud and 99% of society agrees with him, then 99% of society is fundamentally sick and I'd be proud to disagree with them. Your "free society" would be nothing of the sort with actual thugs like Bill running around.

I've offered plenty of objective standards. If you really believed in private property, you would agree with my primary tenet: If someone else's noise enters my property and annoys me, then they are violating my property rights.

See, people like you want to dehumanize the world. You will argue til the end of time that words like "annoy" have no meaning. You see physical force and monetary exchange as the only measurable standards possible. You deal in dangerous ideas that are destructive to LIFE. Meanwhile, real people deal with real problems that involve gray areas. Yes, through experience I know the motives of the jackasses who destroy our peace. Bill and I will not cower and submit just because there's a 1 in a trillion chance that the local Bass Boy actually has some high-minded meaning to his actions.

You deny the sanctity of my eardrum and my desire to protect it, yet you condemn all use of physical force. That makes no sense. Bass Boys can impose on me, but I can't impose on them, according to Drizz the Hypocrite.

Drizz's solutions:

* private defense agencies - what? So you do advocate use of force, just as long is it's not the government's force. Hired goons are okay with you?

* competing systems of arbitration to settle disputes - so who are the arbitrators? By "competing" I think you mean private. What will give them authority in your world without government? Absolutely nothing.

* property rights enforcement - who's going to do this enforcement? Drizz wants NO government!

* engineering solutions to combat the sound waves - fine with me - time for some laws that require assholes to keep their noise INSIDE their car. Soundproofing the offending car would be a beautiful thing.

* either enduring it or moving away - move where? Retards in their pimp-mobiles are everywhere in the USA. It cannot be escaped - that's why we're even having this discussion. If all this was about just random occurances that lasted only a few seconds and only happened once in a blue moon, it wouldn't be an issue. It's every day while we sit in traffic. It's every weekend night, dozens of times for many people. It's parked cars blasting the garbage for long periods of time. A line somewhere in a gray area has been crossed. The noise is excessive and people are becoming hateful over it. Your solutions can't even be tested because they're all theoretical.

Those of us who live in the real world will continue to support noise ordinaces, and we'll feel HAPPY knowing that our ordinances offend those few who harbor absolute truth, like you, Drizz.

You have yet to point us to anything that backs up the validity of your truths. My truths are based on mathematics - the only source of absolute truths. And democratic processes are the only foundations of a society based on mathematics. Democratic ideals say that the 99% outnumber the 1%, and therefore what the 99% want is what is right. If you don't like it, you should go found your own society based on your truth. Then you won't have to endure our noise ordinances any longer. Oh wait - then you'll run into another mathematical truth - the one that says the Earth is finite, and people are everywhere. Poor Drizz won't be able to find a good patch of land on which to found Truthville.

Finally, why bother railing against noise ordinances? In most communities there is no enforcement. The police don't give a damn or are too busy snarfing donuts. Your anarchy fantasy is already in place. You should feel at home on the disgusting and depraved streets of America. You can go out there and do anything and almost always be certain of getting away with it.

someone should get this on the tv, radio, national media the internet only gets out to those who look at it. the goverment should make new laws and i mean right now where i live its unbelivable

Doc, "annoy" does have a meaning and you have personified it on occasion.

I haven't asked you and Bill to "cower" when bassfreaks drive by. I have asked you and Bill to refrain from ATTACKING THEM, a significant difference. I support anyone's right to self-defense as long as that person has had force initiated against them. The central problem with noise is that it physically constitutes force of our creation that radiates outward as we act. And it may seem perfectly logical to say that all sound that enters your property against your will that bothers would rightly deserve retaliation, you have to consider the implications of that doctrine.

You'd be attempting to impose your view of what constitutes annoying levels of noise on not only your property but the property surrounding it. If I'm at one end of your street at a party, surrounding by homeowners that didn't mind the noise, and you were at the other end of the street fuming at the volume, you're saying you'd be perfectly justified in sending in the cops to arrest or fine us...because the offending sound waves traveled to your house several properties away. Similarly, if I'm walking by your home whistling a song at a regular level but if you had a headache and were sitting on your porch, you'd feel justified in sending the cops after me or demanding I stop whistling. A standard of what annoys you is not objective. It is entirely subjective.

That qualifies as initiating force against peaceful individuals and would not qualify as self-defense. Furthermore, having tax-supported police, a state code of law, and a judicial system to handle the punishments counts as force initiation anyway, thus rendering the entire exercise as immoral. So just for purposes of simplification, I'll assume you advocate using private agencies do the police work for you.

Speaking of those, I advocate the use of force ONLY in self-defense and any agency employed in a defensive manner quite obviously fulfills that requirement. To make their businesses more attractive to potential customers, these PDAs might decide to offer (among other many possibilities) property rights enforcement, property retrieval, and arbitration services to act as your representative in peaceful disputes. The only authority that matters is your own; people would be free to ignore the decisions of the courts if they wanted to. However, that would put them in a very negative light with the agencies with whom they wish to contract because most agencies want peaceful and quick means of ending disputes (in order to minimize their costs). If I am known as someone who just blows off arbitration decisions and continue to get involved in trouble, my reputation drops and it becomes harder for me to do business with others.

Your counter-suggestion that we FORCE people to soundproof their cars is another contemptible manifestation of your desire to impose your will on everyone else. You'd do this even knowing there are times when the driver won't be annoying anyone nearby with his music. You'd have this roving mythical Zone of No Annoyance around you at all times, infringing on the freedoms of others while using their property on/in their property in peaceful (if sometimes obnoxious) ways. I cannot agree with that.

We all live in reality, Doc, and everything I've said can be done. Just because my proposal would mean a significant change in the way things are done doesn't mean it's unrealistic or irrational. And clinging to democracy to give you the truth is about as big an evasion of reality as I can think of. You now stand for the tyranny of the majority, justified in doing whatever it wants as long as more people agree with it than not. You aren't going to get any useful or effective property rights protection with that. You can be as snide as you want but it won't change reality: "democratic ideals" are bullshit because they rest on a *process* not truth. For if 99 people in a community can outlaw bassfreaks from their community over the objection of the lone bassfreak that "truth" can change over time as community norms change. Observe this: real truths don't change over time and neither does mathematics. 1 + 1 will always equal 2 and being the aggressor in any situation will always be wrong. That last statement applies to everyone, from the pissed off homeowner running to get his gun to the apathetic and reckless bassfreak blasting his subs.

Again, the critical question is at what point do sound waves cross from being acceptable to violence? Your definition may make all the sense in the world to you (abstractly, it does to me), but unless you were prepared to post notices on your property explaining the level of sound you are willing to tolerate and included a real time sound meter to demonstrate where everyone is in relation to that limit, your standard fails as a standard.

Why get pissed about noise ordinances? Because they are another symptom of a society obsessed with elevating itself above the individual and quashing that individual in the process. Because they operate on the very same basis as laws against interracial marriages, forcing compulsory voting, imposing taxation, and limiting our freedom of speech. Because to correctly attack a fundamental problem, one should be ready to identify the symptoms that problem creates.

I actually do feel more at home on the road than many other locations for the very reason you mention. My freedom, even though under attack by hundreds of laws at any given time, is more easily enjoyed while on the road. I find your opinion of that freedom sick.

Dan, I probably shouldn't hope for this, but I'll say it anyway: read what Erik and I wrote above and come back later if you can muster an argument against it.

The boom car problem could be simply solved by making it illegal to install car speakers in the trunk. All car speakers by law should be in the passanger compartment facing the occupants of the car. Thats why you have a radio in your car so the occupants of the car can enjoy it. The only reason I can think of for putting speakers in the trunk or outside of the passanger compartment is to make it louder OUTSIDE of the car. As for boom sterio competition and sport, well you cant drive a race car on the street but there are still races. I love motocross but I will get a ticket in five minutes if I ride my dirt bike around town. I have seen trucks with as much as ten speakers in the bed.Purposely removing your muffler to make your car louder is illegal. Purposely putting large powerful speakers outside the passanger compartment of a vehicle should be illegal also.

Massa, obviously I disagree with you. Neither you nor the government have the right to punish me for installing speakers in my trunk because neither you nor the government own my car or the speakers I buy.

You think "the only reason" to install speakers in your trunk is to make it louder outside the car? I call bullshit on that right now. I have a 2-door VW Golf and interior space, while ample for people hauling, is still at a premium. Therefore, the best place to put a subwoofer is in the trunk with my amp. Right there is a perfectly valid reason to install speakers back there. Another would be because your car's door panels can't support the kind of speakers you want to install in the cabin space or maybe you don't want to pay for a massive fabrication effort to make them fit.

Even if there were no acceptable reasons to you for installing speakers in the trunk, you still wouldn't have the right to arrest, fine, and jail me for doing so. Because how my car audio is set up, whether I have a muffler on my car or not, and what vehicle I use on the road isn't your call to make unless you own that road.

In my town the police will impound your car if it is to loud, muffler or stereo and repeat offenders don't get there cars back. So Drizz keep pounding away because it's only time before the "old farts" in congress ban any modifications to car stereos. Just think you will only be able to use whimpy government approved units.

Quote from Drizz: "So from that perspective, I also want no laws backed by the threat of force, either."

I assume from the above that you are a student of human nature and are well aware of the pitfalls of this ideology.

In my eyes, the premise your society can not work, as it would be too easy to conquer.

-------

Back on topic, however, I am amazed at the contradictions in your (Drizz) talk of morality, and freedom/liberty.

I'm going to use simple, plain old common sense in my post today.

1a. Freedom of Speech does not mean I must be forced to listen to it.
2a. When a person does something that drives another person to anger with willful intent, that IS Disrespectful.
3a. As for the Property Rights, we have a right to protect our property, do we not?
4a. I, too am a fan of loud music, and like you, find no pleasure or desire to use it as a tool to harm others.

I am for noise ordinances so long as they:
1b. Adhere to science, as safe db have already been established.
2b. Establish and clearly mark "Max db Allowed" zones.
3b. Mandate stereo systems to have an active db display to the user, and perhaps include a pamphlet detailing the rules of usage.

Of course, my ideas would incidentally infringe on the 'rights?' of a person to be an Ass and aid in the prevention of needless murders.

Can't have that, can we?

If my tone comes across as harsh, I apologize.
It's a little after midnight and I'm waiting on the cops to come out and disband the alcohol consuming, loud music playing gang members that are whooping it up in my cul-de-sac so that I can go to bed.
My anger is towards them, not any of you.

I forgot to add:
They don't even live around here.
Lately, they, and others like them, have been parking in random neighborhoods and annoying the residents.
Somehow, they know when the cops are about to arrive and leave before getting busted, but this time my neighbors and I have multi-angle video footage.

My main point is that If noise laws are Clearly Written and Designed correctly, I don't know why a reasonable person would not want them enacted.
Comments, are of course, welcome and appreciated.

Being an audiophile, you are most likely already aware of the damage excessive bass can do to the human body.
For those who are unaware, you can read about it at the following link, or Google other sources:

http://www.omnisonic.com/bbillings.html

As I said before, the science is out there, and our lawmakers have access to it.

"1a. Freedom of Speech does not mean I must be forced to listen to it."
How do you reconcile that with everyday noise emitted from humans, say crowd chatter? Do you try to silence everyone who "forces" you to listen to the noise they make? This is a serious question.

"2a. When a person does something that drives another person to anger with willful intent, that IS Disrespectful."
Nowhere have I said it isn't.

"3a. As for the Property Rights, we have a right to protect our property, do we not?"
Nowhere did I say you don't.

"4a. I, too am a fan of loud music, and like you, find no pleasure or desire to use it as a tool to harm others."
Alrighty.

"I am for noise ordinances so long as they:"
"1b. Adhere to science, as safe db have already been established."
"2b. Establish and clearly mark "Max db Allowed" zones."
"3b. Mandate stereo systems to have an active db display to the user, and perhaps include a pamphlet detailing the rules of usage."
Your 3b contradicts your 3a, above. If we have a right to defend our property, what are we defending it from? I'm assuming you mean aggression in the form of something like physical attack. Well, say I'm in charge at Sony and I direct the company to build an in-dash CD player without the db monitor as proscribed by your hypothetical law. What happens then? Are you going to send in the cops to force me to build that feature into my product? Would I be wrong to defend the company's property with force if that were to happen?

Your 2b wouldn't be a bad idea provided it was enforced and delineated on private property...like I've been saying in this comment thread since the beginning.

"Of course, my ideas would incidentally infringe on the 'rights?' of a person to be an Ass and aid in the prevention of needless murders."
The "right" in question here isn't about being a prick to strangers. It's about who owns you and the things you use.

"It's a little after midnight and I'm waiting on the cops to come out and disband the alcohol consuming, loud music playing gang members that are whooping it up in my cul-de-sac so that I can go to bed."
Another tragedy of the commons. If that cul-de-sac were properly owned, the owner could kick the bastards out.

"Lately, they, and others like them, have been parking in random neighborhoods and annoying the residents."
If they're trespassing on your or anyone else's property, why not gather together, arm yourselves, and ask them politely to leave. If they refuse, explain to them they're trespassing and have no right to be there. If they refuse, explain to them you'll remove them by force if necessary. If they refuse, do exactly that. You don't need police to protect your property.

I don't particularly care if the people who say they represent me in government have access to the best available science on the issue. They are not operating in my name and I don't want others telling them they have the authority to act in my best interests. I am the judge of those.

"The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited;
he must not make himself a nuisance to other people."

- John Stewart Mill

Drizz, wake up. We all love "freedom", but those who have advanced beyond high-school-level thought realize that nothing is absolute. No simple principle has ever managed to build a working society unmodified. You can start out with all the beautiful principles you want, but eventually conflicts will arise that require more than just sloganeering with your libertarian principles.

Why do you keep bringing up lame-brained objections like asking what about "everyday noise emitted from humans, say crowd chatter?" You bring up things like that to try to establish the dangers of slippery slopes and whatnot. Okay, fine. We all admit that slippery slopes exist and that's why there are difficult problems to tackle in the world - it's often hard to draw strict boundaries on what's right/wrong/lawful/illegal/etc. If you are going to use this mode of attack in debates, how about if you start out by explaining how YOUR philosophy avoids slippery slopes. I mean, you've clearly established your brand of law - there should be no laws except to prohibit physical violence against others. Right? Well, you yourself are taking an absolute (there should be no laws) and modifying it in a murky way! What is violence and why is it wrong? Can you explain that, please?

What one person sees as violence, another might not. So you might modify it that "no one can touch anyone else without permission". Okay, where do you get this idea? How is it logical? Why is touching another wrong? How about if I just touch their clothes and not their skin? Exactly how close must my fingertip be to their skin (or clothes) to constitute "touching"? And who is going to measure it to prove that an illegal touch/violence has happened?

I assert there is really no difference between my position that noise ordinances are good and your position that physical violence is bad. We are both saying that there are limits to freedom. We have different definitions of violence - that's all. Now, how is your definition on where to limit freedom fundamentally any different from mine? We both draw a line in the sand. Everyone draws a line in the sand. Fact is, with millions of people living in close proximity, democratic ways of deciding where the collective line in the sand stands is how things are done. Your line in the sand is not morally superior to the line in the sand drawn by the taxpayers of a city.

You have A LOT of work to do in explaining how your positions have any moral or logical authority. I'm going to keep coming back here year after year waiting to see exactly when Drizz wakes up and embraces reality.

Doc, JS Mill is also quoted as saying:

"If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in silencing mankind."

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant."

"He who lets the world or his portion of it, choose his plan of life for him, has no need of any other faculty than the ape-like one of imitation. He who chooses his plan form himself, employs his faculties"

"Whatever crushes individuality is despotism, whether it professes to be enforcing the will of God or the injunctions of men."

"I am not aware that any community has a right to force another to be civilized."

And finally, "The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good, in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it."

Let's not use Mill as a reference, OK? The man was not consistent.

It must feel great to publicly group me and those whom I agree with into "high school-level thought." So much easier to insult and assert rather than validate and justify. Keep this up and I'll just ban you and end the conversation.

"Nothing is absolute"? Isn't that an absolute statement of what you hold to be true? Is it false that you typed and posted a comment? Did I not read what you wrote and responded? This is sheer self-refuting silliness. There ARE absolutes. Reality exists. The trouble is in identifying these absolutes and integrating them together to form a logical whole.

Apparently your grasp of human history is as deep and broad as to rule out unequivocally (one of those pesky absolute truths there!) that "no simple principle" has built a working society. Given that all governments are corrupted and compromise on their founding ideals at some point and to some degree, I agree with you. That, however, is the fault of people trying to use force to get others to do what they want. A principle cannot act. Individuals must employ them and individuals are fallible. Again, I argue not for utopia.

I bring up hypothetical cases to illustrate the real-world difficulty in using the government to achieve goals. It is rarely the case that the central point of a law is disputed. It is much more often the periphery of it's reach that is in question. It is in that area where freedom takes further hits because questions of justice are left at the doorstep of "legal precedent," "legislative intent," and other positivist nonsense.

Allow me to "come clean" and be forthright. I am an anarchist. I want no "laws" because I want no government. When I say the only actions that should be prohibited in my ideal society are those that constitute the initiation of force (aggression and fraud), I mean in such a society those are the only actions that deserve to have the perpetrator punished through restitution for his crimes. I grant to you right now that it is possible in such a society that some would believe a certain volume of noise constitutes aggression (certainly some volumes can cause permanent hearing loss!) and is therefore sanctionable.

"Violence" is not specifically the problem. Starting the violence is. That is what would be "banned" from my ideal society. Self-defense against that aggressive violence is completely acceptable. Aggressive violence is essentially when someone physically alters/moves you or your property against your will. Does this definition open the door to the kind of prohibition you want to see against loud music? Not necessarily. At certain decibel levels from certain angles, your property can be moved and altered by loud noise. On the other hand, my system would not have a blanket prohibition because such would consitute aggression against those who were not harming anyone or anything. As I've said repeatedly, I'm open to this line of argument because it meets my standard of aggression - provided the level of sound actually alters the property in question.

But a "nuisance"? That fails the test. My system allows people to press for compensation when actual harm occurs.

I'm not calling for total, absolute freedom to do whatever one wishes (chaotic hedonism) because that would allow people to violate rights without allowing for self-defense.

You can stop reiterating what the current situation is in this country politically and legally. I know that some decisions are made democratically. They are not automatically valid because they were made democratically! They are as open to criticism as the judgments I make. Those city taxpayers' line in the sand is fine to draw up until they use the police to force people to stand on one side or the other. That's where morality enters the game and falls squarely against the aggressors: the police and the people directing them.

I shouldn't have to explain why theft, assault, and murder (all the prime manifestations of aggression) are immoral. Initiating force against a peaceful man is

1) an attempt to force that man to do what you want him to do;
2) an attempt to replace reason with violence; therefore
3) an attempt to negate his life

Regarding logic, I proceed from a set of premises that are axiomatically true. If you try to refute them, you end up contradicting yourself and affirming their existence. For an example, see the "absolute truth" discussion above. From these premises, one can derive other truths. It is upon this foundation that I disagree with the justification of the state and the coercion and aggression it necessarily must engage in.

See you next year.

Mill was undeniably a great thinker, Drizz. The fact that you think an "inconsistancy" in the words of a thinker means that we should entirely ignore that thinker betrays your fundamental problem: you believe you can find a set of fully consistent axioms that completely describe a world system. Ever heard of Gödel? Look him up - whatever axioms you come up with, they'll never answer every question with absolute precision. Doesn't matter how true each axiom is, and it doesn't matter how many millions of new axioms you "prove" with the previous axioms. Get back to me when you've absorbed this idea (which has been fully accepted by mainstream science since 1931). Then we can move on to addressing the infinite supply of paradoxes and gray areas in life that your axioms don't solve. While you do that, I will explore your "axioms" further.

Doc, I'll have to respond later. I have classwork due for my (savor this irony for a moment!) Public Finance class and I don't have time to reply as needed.

Having a crisis faith, Drizz? It's been 13 days since you promised a response. When you start digging into Gödel you find so many bewildering ideas coming from lots of really smart people, I know it can be difficult to accept... But neither you nor anyone else, not even God, can build a perfect philosophical system with axioms alone.

Doc, there are several reasons why I haven't responded yet and they are all related to this: such a response will necessarily be long and detailed and I haven't had the time to sit down and devote the two or three hours it will take. I finished the aforementioned paper, but other things have popped up and sapped my free time.

I also realize now that my defense of my position has become somewhat overzealous. When I do respond, I want to it live up to the expectations I've created. Therefore, and because we've long since strayed from the specific issue of noise ordinance laws, my response will be in the form of a separate post on the front page of my website.

I cannot say exactly when it will be posted, but I don't want to leave you hanging for much longer. I'll try to publish it before this weekend.

From this comment onwards, I request that all discussion in this post be limited to noise ordinances. More fundamental questions regarding the legitimacy of the state and what it ought or ought not to do should be posted in the forthcoming reply.

Good point about keeping on subject here - will do. Look forward to your new post. Don't hurry on my account, though...

Doc, I wanted to say I'm working on my reply right now and will have it posted no later than tomorrow night.

Here you go: http://www.drizzten.com/blargchives/001162.html

I do not admit defeat. I admit ignorance.

Drizz, it takes an exceptional person to admit ignorance. Few humans ever do it. You're in high company since Socrates is the one who said "The greatest wisdom is to know you know nothing" (or something like that). I gladly admit my ignorance along side you... I'll continue to keep an eye on your blog. I want to see what you might develop. (PS. I posted this here so as to not clutter up your new thread needlessly. I figure this one is already hopelessly cluttered. Plus I am directly responding to your last statement here...)