Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site l5.uucp
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!l5!laura
From: laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Day to day life in Libertaria
Message-ID: <179@l5.uucp>
Date: Sun, 6-Oct-85 18:03:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: l5.179
Posted: Sun Oct  6 18:03:20 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 8-Oct-85 07:44:15 EDT
References: <139@mck-csc.UUCP>
Reply-To: laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Distribution: net
Organization: Ell-Five [Consultants], San Francisco
Lines: 61

In article <139@mck-csc.UUCP> bmg@mck-csc.UUCP (Bernard M. Gunther) writes:
>
>2 people, A and B, own property directly next to each other.  Person A
>likes to play his stereo late at night to the repeated annoyance of person B.
>What would be the correct responce for person B?  
>

The first thing that B does is to tell A that B is annoyed.  This may fix
the problem as A may not know that he is bothering anyone. However, I am
going to assume that A tells B to take a hike. A now goes home and has a
lot to consider.

This is true *whatever* system you are using.  However, I am going to
continue assuming a very decentallised libertaria where the basic until of
geographical government is a neighbourhood.  Every neighbourhood has its
own collection of laws (though ideally no neighbourhood has very many
laws).  There are some laws (like those allowing emmigration from a
neighbourhood, and those against murder and assault) which are common to all
neighbourhoods.

So, B goes home and looks at the neighbourhood rule list. He also looks at
his lease and gets a copy of A's lease as well and reads this. If they are
both renting from the same condo company, then this will be easier than
if he has to get it through public records. In any case, the lease or
the neighbourhood may have a list of strange rules (no playing your stereo
at night, no using the Jaccusi without clothes, no pets) and if what B 
objects to is on the list and A has signed his lease agreeing to this, then
B has a case agaisnt A. B should do whatever the lease specifies one does to 
transgressors of these rules. If this rule did not make the list B may
be out of luck.  However, there will be a way to make new rules inherant
in the organisation of a neighbourhood.  B may want to address his grievance
this way. However, making a case that there needs to be a law against ``playing
stereos at night'' is going to be a tough one.  B's real problem was that
he did not forsee this possibility when he bought his place in the first place.
Perhaps he has a claim that the person who sold him this house mislead him.
(``That empty lot beside you is going to be a neighbourhood park. I guarantee
that it will never be developed in your lifetime!''). If B can make a new
neighbourhood rule against playing stereos at night, B and all those who
also supported this bill are going to owe a lot of compensation to A and those
who moved into the neighbourhood under the understanding that they are going
to be allowed to play their stereo. 

Can B claim that A is doing this to harrass B? Or that his stereo is
damaging B's health (if B can, I think that it is the person who
designed B's dwelling that has produced an inferior house and is at the
root of this problem).  Probably not, and so B cannot claim that A is
coercing B, merely that he is making his life inconvenient. Of course,
if B cannot sleep and thus cannot work, he  may have a strong case here.

B now has learned a valuable lesson about what sort of property B should
buy in the future -- B wants to buy places that either are far away from
other places or which are organised into a neighbourhood which has
an agreement which prohibits loud stereo-playing at night.

B may have to move to meet these criteria, however.


-- 
Laura Creighton		(note new address!)
sun!l5!laura		(that is ell-five, not fifteen)
l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa