🚀 go-pugleaf

Russell Nelson recently posted a message regarding libertarians and
zoning, describing a situation that existed between him and his
neighbor not to his liking.  He then asks what a libertarian would do
in similar circumstances.  Since I am a libertarian in similar
circumstances, I thought it appropriate to reply.

Russell writes:

> [A house next door] has apparently been vacant for twice the four 
> years that we have lived here.  The chimney is falling down, the 
> paint is peeling, and the grass is so overgrown that it comes up 
> to my waist.  There is no electrical power, no phone lines; a tree 
> brought them down five years ago.

In fact, the house next door to mine has peeling paint, a backyard
completely overgrown with weeds, a decrepit fence, and a roof that
is falling apart, shedding shingles on my driveway on windy days.

> The house looks like crap ...

so does this one ...

> My wealth is being stolen by my neighbor.  

This is completely and utterly false, although most people in similar
circumstances share this view.  Having an asset of yours decline in
value is not the same as having wealth stolen from you, although both
leave you worse off financially.

Suppose you buy stock in company A, and a month later competing
company B announces a new product better and cheaper to that of
company A.  Your stock declines in value.  Has wealth been stolen
from you?

Suppose your neighbor were to fix up his house, but then prominently
displayed the following sign on his front lawn:

        FAN THE FLAMES OF REVOLUTION AROUND THE WORLD!
        SUPPORT THE COMMUNIST WORKERS' PARTY!

Suppose further that he flew a hammer and sickle flag from a flagpole
out front.  This might lower your property values considerably.  Has
your neighbor stolen from you?  Should he somehow be impeded from
expressing his views?  I think not.

The point is that in any society with private property, people
exercising their freedom of choice in disposing of what they own will
inevitably affect the economic well being of others.  To call that
stealing is complete and utter nonsense.

> My house has a decidedly lower value because of the (non-)efforts 
> of my neighbor.

My situation, exactly.  It does not follow from this that my neighbor
should be forced to fix up her house to make my house worth more.  She
is a free human being, who may treat her property in any way she
wishes.  And of course, she may not have the resources to improve her
home, although I doubt this to be the case.

> Would I, were I a Libertarian:
>   o Burn the house down (the inside, I am told, is as bad as the
>     outside)?
        
        Of course not.  The wrongness of destruction of property is
something everyone can agree on.  My guess is that this suggestion was
in jest.

>   o Get together a neighborhood work crew and trim the shrubs, paint
>     the house, etc?

        I have thought of this, but at this point I wish to employ my
efforts toward other goals that are more important to me.  This may
change once I get my degree, if my wife and I decide not to move.

>   o Jump up and down and yell and scream about having the existing
>     laws enforced?
        
        I do not think there are any such laws here in Oakland, and if
there were I wouldn't think of demanding that they be enforced.  Nor
would I turn in a draft registration evader, a drug user, an insider
trader, or a Berkeley landlord who charged more than the legal rent.

>   o Grin and bear it?

        This is in fact what I do.  

        It never ceases to amaze me how often libertarians are
referred to as "self-centered".  It is precisely because I know that I
am not the only person in the world, that the improvement of my
financial well-being is not of paramount importance to a just society,
and that other people have different goals than I do that I do not
unequivocally support laws that benefit me.  A sense of tolerance and
an understanding of how free societies work demands that I do just
that.

--Barry