Free Speech & Right to Privacy/Libel/etc (more fun with PZ!)

[Red Celt]

In your liberal society as you've described, does an individual have the right to exclude people from a lawn surrounding a home where that individual lives with a family?

CES, this won't answer all of your questions, but it will at least represent something close to the imagined world that I'm trying to portray. If nothing else, it's Ursula Le Guin, so entertainment should be guaranteed even if enlightenment isn't.

[Robert_S]

OK, think about unworkable shit all you want. Knock yourself out.

They should have had that above the entrance to the Lyceum or the Academy.

Without centuries of people doing exactly that, we wouldn't have progressed to science. So... bravo, using an implement created by science to denigrate the foundations that caused it.

But at some point, you gotta do the empiricism and look at what actually happens in the world where people eat, do laundry, poop, trip over that thing someone else left on the staircase... otherwise you're going to end up with the functional equivalent of gods all over again.

This isn't... I mean... it isn't an either/or... this isn't a replacement model for reality and, for the love of all that is holy, please tell me that there can be a coexistence between "real worlds" and "imagined worlds".

Position 1: state A cannot exist without state B.
Position 2: state A can exist without state B and here's an example in an imagined world.

Why is that problematical?

For those who are having a problem with all of this, a word of advice... stay well clear of philosophy. If you see a book with the word on it, leave it be. If you see a documentary with the word in the title, change channels. Basically, anything philosophical is a big "no no" for you and should be avoided... because thought experiments are common. Not because they are meant to represent an alternative for reality, but because they help you look at reality in a different (fuller-structured) way. And that's a good thing.

Surely?

Oh, I have no problem with thought experiments and hypothetical questions. But usually they are simplified versions of things that shed light on the complex sloppy world. You have to have both the pure theory and the practical nut-and-bolts how do-you-actually-make-it-work thinking. One mode of thought flies off into an idealised world that atrophies because whatever conceptual framework you start with turns into a rigid cage and the other to unimaginative and reactive stagnation because whatever the immediate situation is turns into a rigid cage.

[Red Celt]

Oh, I have no problem with thought experiments and hypothetical questions. But usually they are simplified versions of things that shed light on the complex sloppy world. You have to have both the pure theory and the practical nut-and-bolts how do-you-actually-make-it-work thinking. One mode of thought flies off into an idealised world that atrophies because whatever conceptual framework you start with turns into a rigid cage and the other to unimaginative and reactive stagnation because whatever the immediate situation is turns into a rigid cage.

To me, it is enough that people think slightly differently. Many thought experiments spring to mind that don't try and offer a solution for the real world... they're meant to make you look at the real world from a different perspective.

[Robert_S]

Oh, I have no problem with thought experiments and hypothetical questions. But usually they are simplified versions of things that shed light on the complex sloppy world. You have to have both the pure theory and the practical nut-and-bolts how do-you-actually-make-it-work thinking. One mode of thought flies off into an idealised world that atrophies because whatever conceptual framework you start with turns into a rigid cage and the other to unimaginative and reactive stagnation because whatever the immediate situation is turns into a rigid cage.

To me, it is enough that people think slightly differently. Many thought experiments spring to mind that don't try and offer a solution for the real world... they're meant to make you look at the real world from a different perspective.

I have imagined a few different no-property scenarios and I didn't like what I saw in my mind's eye. Right now I see group decision paralysis as a major ref flag (I'm dealing with it at one of my jobs where even a kinda crap decision beats a late decision most of the time)

Still though, I am quite open to the idea of restrictions on non-personal private property. How many rental properties should one person or partnership of people be allowed to own for instance.

[Coito ergo sum]

In your liberal society as you've described, does an individual have the right to exclude people from a lawn surrounding a home where that individual lives with a family?

CES, this won't answer all of your questions, but it will at least represent something close to the imagined world that I'm trying to portray. If nothing else, it's Ursula Le Guin, so entertainment should be guaranteed even if enlightenment isn't.
]

So, yes? I can exclude my neighbors and local dogs from the lawn I mow, which surrounds the home She and Little She sleep in? Yes? No? Maybe? It depends? What?

[Red Celt]

So, yes? I can exclude my neighbors and local dogs from the lawn I mow, which surrounds the home She and Little She sleep in? Yes? No? Maybe? It depends? What?

What do you think, given everything I've told you? Think about it and answer your own question.

[Coito ergo sum]

So, yes? I can exclude my neighbors and local dogs from the lawn I mow, which surrounds the home She and Little She sleep in? Yes? No? Maybe? It depends? What?

What do you think, given everything I've told you? Think about it and answer your own question.

I don't know. This was your propertyless society. I could imagine a world where the answer is yes, and where the answer is no. Not sure what you were suggesting, which is why I asked you.

So, please, in your scenario, is the answer yes, no, maybe, or something else?

EDIT: But, it would seem to me that to be a propertlyless society, the answer would have to be no, that I could not generally speaking exclude the neighbors or their dogs from the lawn.

[Thinking Aloud]

EDIT: But, it would seem to me that to be a propertlyless society, the answer would have to be no, that I could not generally speaking exclude the neighbors or their dogs from the lawn.

And they wouldn't "have" dogs.

[Kristie]

Wow, this thread got way off topic.

[Coito ergo sum]

EDIT: But, it would seem to me that to be a propertlyless society, the answer would have to be no, that I could not generally speaking exclude the neighbors or their dogs from the lawn.

And they wouldn't "have" dogs.

I guess that's true. LOL. They might feed dogs. They might pet and live with dogs, but they wouldn't "have" them.

But, I suspect that Red Celt is suggesting that if I live in a house that has a lawn, that it would be my right to exclude the neighbors from trodding on it. However, if I do have that right, isn't that a property right, regardless of whether we avoid use of the term?

[Red Celt]

So, yes? I can exclude my neighbors and local dogs from the lawn I mow, which surrounds the home She and Little She sleep in? Yes? No? Maybe? It depends? What?

What do you think, given everything I've told you? Think about it and answer your own question.

I don't know.

The scenario that you painted exists in the real world. In small communities (flats/apartments) with communal lawns, people don't own the lawns outside of their rented (non-owned) homes. They make it pretty, because they want other people to judge them as being people who live in pretty neighbourhoods.

That aside, the lawn outside of the property that you inhabit... can you exclude your neighbours? Exclude them from doing what? Making a mess of it? Why yes, because in a liberal society, your liberties don't allow you to impede on the liberties of others. So you wouldn't screw them over and they wouldn't screw you over.

But what if they wanted to sit on the lawn outside (what you would mistakingly call) "your property" to have a picnic? At that time of day, the sun is blocked from the lawn nearest to where they inhabit. They're not causing any harm. They might even invite you down to join them. At other times of day, the sun doesn't reach the lawn outside of where you inhabit, so the favour could be returned.

If you're not worried about the lawn being messed up and you're also not happy with people being on the lawn who aren't causing any harm... what other objections could there be?

If the lawns are such a deal-breaker for you... in this imagined world, none of the properties have lawns in front of them.

Sorted.

[Kristie]

So, yes? I can exclude my neighbors and local dogs from the lawn I mow, which surrounds the home She and Little She sleep in? Yes? No? Maybe? It depends? What?

What do you think, given everything I've told you? Think about it and answer your own question.

I don't know.

The scenario that you painted exists in the real world. In small communities (flats/apartments) with communal lawns, people don't own the lawns outside of their rented (non-owned) homes. They make it pretty, because they want other people to judge them as being people who live in pretty neighbourhoods.

That aside, the lawn outside of the property that you inhabit... can you exclude your neighbours? Exclude them from doing what? Making a mess of it? Why yes, because in a liberal society, your liberties don't allow you to impede on the liberties of others. So you wouldn't screw them over and they wouldn't screw you over.

But what if they wanted to sit on the lawn outside (what you would mistakingly call) "your property" to have a picnic? At that time of day, the sun is blocked from the lawn nearest to where they inhabit. They're not causing any harm. They might even invite you down to join them. At other times of day, the sun doesn't reach the lawn outside of where you inhabit, so the favour could be returned.

If you're not worried about the lawn being messed up and you're also not happy with people being on the lawn who aren't causing any harm... what other objections could there be?

If the lawns are such a deal-breaker for you... in this imagined world, none of the properties have lawns in front of them.

Sorted.

If the homes are rented, who owns them? If you say 'no one', then why are you having to rent?

[Red Celt]

If the homes are rented, who owns them? If you say 'no one', then why are you having to rent?

No, the rented part only applied to the first paragraph.

In the imagined world, nobody owns anything.

[Coito ergo sum]

So, yes? I can exclude my neighbors and local dogs from the lawn I mow, which surrounds the home She and Little She sleep in? Yes? No? Maybe? It depends? What?

What do you think, given everything I've told you? Think about it and answer your own question.

I don't know.

The scenario that you painted exists in the real world. In small communities (flats/apartments) with communal lawns, people don't own the lawns outside of their rented (non-owned) homes. They make it pretty, because they want other people to judge them as being people who live in pretty neighbourhoods.

So, in your "free" and "liberal" society, I'm not allowed to live in a house with a yard? Liberal society you envision here would make me live in flats/apartments? [ after reading your response to Kristie, I'm editing this -- it seems you don't mean that]

However, in the real world, people who rent flats don't spend time themselves fixing up the common areas. The Landlord does that. The people who rent flats only take care of their own rented space.

That aside, the lawn outside of the property that you inhabit... can you exclude your neighbours? Exclude them from doing what?

Walking on it. Setting foot on it.

Making a mess of it? Why yes, because in a liberal society, your liberties don't allow you to impede on the liberties of others.

What does making a mess out of a lawn have to do with me? Who am I to tell them even what is a mess? I'd prefer they not trod on the grass, because over time it kills the grass, like when people walk on grass and make a path. So, i don't want even one person to trod on the lawn.

So you wouldn't screw them over and they wouldn't screw you over.

Except they may want to walk over the grass because it's more convenient to them, and they may think that by me telling them they can't, I'm screwing them over, because they don't care if the lawn looks as nice as I want it to look. We may have different standards, and they may think a path is hunky dory, and I may think it's not.

But what if they wanted to sit on the lawn outside (what you would mistakingly call) "your property" to have a picnic?

Such usage can kill the grass over time. I may have already scheduled a picnic and I may want my family there, only to walk outside and find my neighbors picnicking there and blocking my ability to use the yard, which I mow, and care for.

At that time of day, the sun is blocked from the lawn nearest to where they inhabit. They're not causing any harm. They might even invite you down to join them. At other times of day, the sun doesn't reach the lawn outside of where you inhabit, so the favour could be returned.

All well and good. So, you're saying, then, that in the world you're imagining here, I do not have the right to just tell them to get off the lawn that surrounds the house that I live in and which I care for and pay for to keep green and manicured? If they have some colorable claim to a non-harmful use, they can use it?

If you're not worried about the lawn being messed up and you're also not happy with people being on the lawn who aren't causing any harm... what other objections could there be?

Well, clearly without supervision, people are prone to leave litter. They may drink alcohol and become unruly. They may be raising their voices, and bothering me, and She and Little She inside the house. Maybe Little She has a cold or is tired, or maybe I work nights and the picnic they are having is bothering me.

Maybe I'm concerned the repeated picnics will damage the lawn over time, and maybe I figure since I'm the one who pays for upkeep and maintenance, that I ought to have some say in what goes on on the lawn, and I don't want people matting it down, scuffing up divets of grass, poking holes in it with croquet equipment, and damaging it with soccer playing and frisbee games.

If the lawns are such a deal-breaker for you... in this imagined world, none of the properties have lawns in front of them.

Sorted.

LOL -- so your "liberal" world that is "just as free" as the one we live in has a law enforced which prohibits lawns in front of or around residences, and of course, in the world you noted just above, everyone was forced to live in apartments anyway.... that doesn't sound very "liberal" to me. Does it to you? [Edit: I at first thought you were suggesting that folks would not live in houses surrounded by yards - I see that you were not intending that -- I misunderstood you]

[Red Celt]

That aside, the lawn outside of the property that you inhabit... can you exclude your neighbours? Exclude them from doing what?

Walking on it. Setting foot on it.

So the lawn is what? An ornament? A green square of inch-high blades of grass, inhibited from doing what grass is meant to do (grow, seed and reproduce) so that... what? It is a sculpted nothingness that nobody may inhabit? Put a sign up saying "this is a work of art" so that your neighbours can gather and view it, offering their own interpretation of the artist's meaning.

I'm confused by what you're trying to accomplish (other than "This belongs to me! I own it! It is mine!").

It's a bit of land. It was a bit of land before you were born and it will still be a bit of land after you're dead. Just... what's the point of claiming it as yours, in the mean time?

If it's a communal area (belonging to nobody) why does it matter what other people do on it?