Samson Corwell Posted August 29, 2014 Author Share Posted August 29, 2014 "Coming to the Nuisance" means exactly what it sounds like: if a property owner is using his property so as to cause a nuisance to another property owner, then the property owner who was the earlier to start his particular use is the one who has the right to continue his use . . . That doesn't sound right. If a factory is emitting smoke and a couple moves in next door and that couple later has a family, then the factory should stop polluting because the smoke causes problems for the children's health. Especially if a chemical in it has just been discovered to be particularly harmful. Because the right to property means the right to use it indefinitely, it follows that, once a property owner has started using his property in a particular fashion, he has the right to stop others from interfering with that particular use. Except that doesn't follow at all. Sure, you can own something in perpetuity (provided your immortal), but that in no way implies that you can continue to use it in a certain way. New town ordinances get passed all the time as new issues arise. I'll continue to say that "exclusive use" does not mean "any use". This is the rationale behind the Coming to the Nuisance doctrine's requirement that, when uses of two properties conflict with each other, the use which has priority is the one started first, and the owner has the right to stop others from interfering with this prior use (the "first in time, first in right" rule). See the above. "Firsties" is not always a valid claim/defense. In fact, I'm sure it's mostly a stupid one in more realistic cases. Since the right to property necessarily implies the right to use it indefinitely, and since the right to use property indefinitely implies the first in time, first in right rule, it follows that respecting property rights ultimately means respecting the Coming to the Nuisance doctrine too. The two are inseparable. "Respecting property rights" is a phrase that's open to A LOT of interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samson Corwell Posted August 29, 2014 Author Share Posted August 29, 2014 However, there is more to the issue of *property rights* than the flat-out "Objectively sounding" statement: "You may do as you please on your property as long as you do not initiate force to violate my rights." The problem becomes, just what is the initiation of force? Which is why the NIOF gets us nowhere. I came to realize that the same applies to Mill's harm principle and the NAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 [post 25 - seems the "quote" button is not working for me tonight] Samson:It is a noun at the end of the sentence and no it fits him perfectly.A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samson Corwell Posted August 29, 2014 Author Share Posted August 29, 2014 [post 25 - seems the "quote" button is not working for me tonight] Samson:It is a noun at the end of the sentence and no it fits him perfectly.A...*Shrug.* I can call Rick Santorum a theocrat, but that doesn't mean it isn't a snarl word. Would you consider laws against animal cruelty to be "statist"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samson Corwell Posted August 29, 2014 Author Share Posted August 29, 2014 Surely you can understand why most people in favor of those laws wouldn't see them as "statist"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Animal cruelty. Can't we leave this to the animal cruelists?--that is, let them do the heavy philosophical lifting in court defending themselves while we go to the beach?--Brantdon't look; I'm feeding one into the wood chipper! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Samson wrote about the "Coming to the Nuisance" idea which is way to dispose of antiquated, restrictive zoning laws: That doesn't sound right. If a factory is emitting smoke and a couple moves in next door and that couple later has a family, then the factory should stop polluting because the smoke causes problems for the children's health. Especially if a chemical in it has just been discovered to be particularly harmful. end quote That is loading the deck. The notion of coming to the nuisance is not about poisoning the environment. That would be the initiation of force. But what if a horse stables and cow farm are located next to the NEW house you just moved into? That is when coming to the nuisance is applicable. You would need to wrinkle your nose and hold your tongue (in moderation) when the wind is blowing in the wrong direction. I quoted: Because the right to property means the right to use it indefinitely, it follows that, once a property owner has started using his property in a particular fashion, he has the right to stop others from interfering with that particular use. end quote And Samson responded: Except that doesn't follow at all. Sure, you can own something in perpetuity (provided youre immortal), but that in no way implies that you can continue to use it in a certain way. New town ordinances get passed all the time as new issues arise. I'll continue to say that "exclusive use" does not mean "any use". end quote Again, coming to the nuisance can be used to *objectively* get rid of antiquated, Statist, zoning, town ordinances, etc. The concept needs work, but it is better than living in Mayberry with a dictatorial mayor and crony capitalist town council. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 I'm sorry Sampson...So my business which existed when you looked at the house, had surveys done and we are supposed to protect you from being blind and stupid?A...And a whiner...your argument sir, is a lot of horseshit and I as the owner of the stable am an expert on horseshit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samson Corwell Posted August 29, 2014 Author Share Posted August 29, 2014 I'm sorry Sampson...So my business which existed when you looked at the house, had surveys done and we are supposed to protect you from being blind and stupid?A...And a whiner...your argument sir, is a lot of horseshit and I as the owner of the stable am an expert on horseshit...Wait, what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Unless Peter's second paragraph in post # 33 is not yours and then I apologize.A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samson Corwell Posted August 29, 2014 Author Share Posted August 29, 2014 That is loading the deck. The notion of coming to the nuisance is not about poisoning the environment. That would be the initiation of force. But what if a horse stables and cow farm are located next to the NEW house you just moved into? That is when coming to the nuisance is applicable. You would need to wrinkle your nose and hold your tongue (in moderation) when the wind is blowing in the wrong direction.Yes, yes, I know the drill. You state a principle, I point out what can slip by it, and then you backtrack saying "No, that's already covered.". In what dictionary would you find a definition of "force" that applies to poisonous fumes. If I've dropped a poison pill in your drink while you weren't looking, then I'm not guilty of using "force". At least in any normal sense of the word.Again, coming to the nuisance can be used to *objectively* get rid of antiquated, Statist, zoning, town ordinances, etc. The concept needs work, but it is better than living in Mayberry with a dictatorial mayor and crony capitalist town council.My Magic 8-Ball says: "Don't count on it.". The axiomatic predictive process this "coming to the nuisance" concept uses is simply ad hoc navelgazing. You can maintain that it's the best way to approach these matters, but don't pretend that it's contained in the concept of property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 The Three Minute Philosophy - Locke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now