introduction and hello

[Brownhouse]

The point I was making is that having agents do something for you--anything--is the same as doing it yourself, responsibility-wise.  One of the reasons this country is in such a mess is that people have been convinced otherwise.  It sounds so very civil to most people--"I'll invoke the Rule of Law to have that guy act civilly"--but that's a euphemistic way of saying, "I'll go overpower him to make him do what I want."

I think we generally agree on the situation.  The difference here is, this guy seems to have no concern for the property rights of others, and the normal approach to reminding him has not worked.  Rather than ignoring the problem, continuing to do what doesn't work, or overpowering him myself, I'll just call the police and be done with it if it happens again.  I should mention, in the big scheme of things, this is a minor issue to me.  It came up in conversation here, but in reality I'm not too concerned about it.

[pelletfarmer]

> I think we generally agree on the situation.

I thought so too, until I read this...


> I should mention, in the big scheme of things, this is a minor issue to me.  It came up in conversation here, but in reality I'm not too concerned about it.

I'm not sure if that means you call armed agents to do your bidding regularly, or if you just don't think it's a big deal to send armed agents on your behalf.

I'm new here myself and don't want to cause any ruckus, so I'll just say that I'm very concerned that many people call armed agents regularly to do their bidding.  Personally I can't think of a bigger issue, since all the other ones I can ignore if I wish.  But that's me, and I'm really confident that in Wyoming most folk do most stuff for themselves, and those they care about.  I think that's a wonderful thing and I think it's sad that so many "outsiders" barely have a grasp that they've been brainwashed (educated, ahem) to believe that sending armed agents to people's doors is a minor issue.  Even crazier to me is the meme that this somehow represents civility, so I'll thank you for not offering that.

I didn't understand it before, and I don't understand it now.  Please don't send any armed agents to my door to tell me what to do.  A phone call or email would be much better for everyone involved, and a zillion times more productive.

[Brownhouse]

Please don't send any armed agents to my door to tell me what to do.  A phone call or email would be much better for everyone involved, and a zillion times more productive.

??  I'm new here too, I mean no offense to you or anyone here, but the whole reason armed agents will probably be going to my neighbor's house is because he's not like you, or me, or probably anyone else here.  I HAVE talked to him.  Several times.  He simply doesn't get it.  I'm not going to move because of it, and I'm not trying to blow the whole thing out of proportion (that's what I meant about it not being a big deal, calling the cops IS a big deal).  It's just a simple fact that I've learned to deal with...the guy isn't getting it, and I'm sure he's going to infringe on my rights AGAIN, and when he does, I don't want to argue with him, I don't want to go and push him around or hit him, I don't want to brandish a weapon.  It's not worth doing something stupid and getting myself into trouble, which is what any of these things would lead to.  I want HIM to have a moment of clarity, for disrespecting my rights serially and not responding to my neighborly requests to quit it.  If this doesn't make sense, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but again, I mean no disrespect, and I promise you that if YOU were my neighbor, you'd find that I was a good neighbor who minds his own business and stays on his side of the property line, unless you have an emergency and need help, in which case I'll be there. 

[pelletfarmer]

> that's what I meant about it not being a big deal, calling the cops IS a big deal

Darn, now I'm more confused than when I started!  So is it a big deal or not?

Anyway, I'm not looking to argue and you haven't a chance at offending me, so don't even think about that.  All I really wanted to know is what I said I really wanted to know, at the beginning...

"My main question is this.  If you have determined that nothing will stop your neighbor except the actual threat of physical violence if he continues, why wouldn't you do it yourself?  I don't mean to be rude or sarcastic; I'm genuinely interested in your thinking on the matter.  Most people will say they find something "civil" in having someone else do the dirty work, and I can't figure that part out.  If I hire a goon to go steal your stuff, would you not consider me a thief?  How would my having an agent somehow change my position?  Thanks if you can clarify at all."

If the entirety of your clarification is, "That's how everyone does it here," then fine; you can leave it at that.  If you've got anything else, I remain interested.  Any other options, I'll manage with those too.

You see, I'm in the Midwest too and I'm trying to practice!

[pelletfarmer]

Oops, my mistake...you did clarify a bit more, with this:

> It's not worth doing something stupid and getting myself into trouble, which is what any of these things would lead to.

I'm so lousy at Pragmatism that sometimes I don't recognize it when I see it.  You don't want to handle it yourself because then others will send armed agents against you for handling it.  I get it, and sorry about that.  Lot of armed agents though, I gotta say.

So as payback, I'll give you this for free...

> I want HIM to have a moment of clarity, for disrespecting my rights serially and not responding to my neighborly requests to quit it.

Trust me...it doesn't matter what you or any number of armed agents do.  The guy will probably never have a moment of clarity and even if he ever does, you can't give it to him.  So speaking pragmatically, that would be a waste of your time if that's really your goal.

Hope that helps.  Again, sorry I missed that.

[Brownhouse]

Ha ha, no, the goal is to keep my trees from getting cut down and to keep his trash off my property.  The "clarity" would be a bonus, but if he doesn't get that, the trees and trash would be enough.    But yes, you did see that, so cool.

I suppose I know what you mean, when you said that you're trying to practice, I mentioned something about this before, about how living in a more urban area, you really CAN'T experience life or practice much for how things will be in a more rural area, you're forced to partake of what's around you.  Regarding issues like this, my personal take is, while I don't think I'm "brainwashed" by modern society, I also don't want to go too far in the opposite direction.  I'm living my life, I'm definitely aware of the "problems" that are brewing and I'm preparing in my own way for them (probably more thoroughly than 99% of the people in my area) but I don't take it too far.  Not because I'm ignorant or brainwashed, just that that is the nature of living life, at least it is for me.  You could call it my calculated gamble.  Just my observation, on which I'm open to other's views.

[patrick04]

Whoa, it's like the Wild West out here!  What the heck happened?  So, an anarchist, a Libertarian, and a libertarian walk into a bar....  5 hours later....  J/k 

If anyone else has recommendations for engineering jobs and good places to live in Wyoming, let me know   

[pelletfarmer]

Since you seem moderately interested, I'll share my take.  As I said, I just suck at Pragmatism.  To me, everything is hierarchical principle.  So when you say, "the goal is to keep my trees from getting cut down and to keep his trash off my property," that sounds like a perfectly reasonable goal.  I don't want his trash on my property either.

The thing is, goals are hierarchical.  To me, the decision not to be a thug against others, except in the most extreme cases of the absolutely necessary defense of my very existence, is a higher goal than anything having to do with material property or even trash.  I mean, it's all about property ultimately---"I own myself" being the pinnacle.  We can thank FSW's own Mama Liberty for that one, I believe, even though it's kinda obvious.  Anyway, for me, the decision not to interact with others on a coercive basis is a much higher goal than any nitwit who can't control his trash.  And like I said, if it were really intolerable, I still wouldn't turn myself into a thug to get him to stop.  There are lots of strategies short of that IMO.

My real point was that having agents do something for you, is the same as doing it yourself.  Hence if I did decide that physical force were actually necessary against someone else, I wouldn't look for somebody else to do the wet work, so to speak.  And further, I think one of the reasons we're in such a mess is because people have been convinced that as long as somebody else is doing the dirty work for them, they're not responsible.  I think that's terribly wrong.  I'd say it's this imagined abdication of responsibility by otherwise decent people, that's let a bunch of thuggish looters and moochers take over the country.

BTW I think it'd be terribly wrong for you to go over there and blow his head off for dumping trash.  OTOH were you to do something crazy like that, I wouldn't take it as any of my business except insofar that a) I'd keep a very close eye on you, and b) I'd be very careful not to cross your property line.  What I wouldn't do is attempt to take vengeance for however he chose to live his life and whatever consequences he suffered for it.  That's another thing that got us into this mess, the belief that an "eye for an eye" is some sort of justice.  Formally it's the Fallacy of Tu Quoque ("He did iit") writ large.

Thanks for the opportunity for me to explain this stuff.  I suppose it'll serve as my "introduction and hello" too.  My name is Jim Klein and I've been following this place for a while.  For my money, the only way this country--maybe even the species--survives, is for the huge majority of the decent people who just want to live and trade among each other, start thinking--and especially acting--like most of the folk here.

[pelletfarmer]

Erratum:  The Fallacy of Tu Quoque means "You did it."  It's the action we teach all young children is wrong, and then spend the rest of their lives teaching them that it's right.  Little wonder everyone ends up so confused.

[Brownhouse]

Well thanks for the explanation Jim.  You sound like a good guy and a good neighbor.    For the most part, I live and let live.  I go out of my way not to impose myself on others, and I expect the same.  Some things I let go, and I suppose you could say I also have my pet peeves.  Usually good people can work their differences out civilly, I'm willing to do this too.  Some things are just over the line for me...and some people aren't good people.  It's not for me to judge, but when it's important to me, I will assert my rights.

[MamaLiberty]

And, just to expand the discussion a bit, there are also things neighbors do that can't be fixed with much of anything except moving.

As an example, most of the residents of my area have large "yard lights," high on big poles. No idea why, actually, but there they are. Some places have more than one. The people on the next to the next lot to the north have SIX of the damned things, some that nauseating pink/orange color. They bought the lot next door to me after the house burned down and the owner died. They cleaned up the lot and repaired the garage, all of which was very welcome. And then they put ANOTHER big pink/orange light right in the middle of it. A "security light" with nothing to guard.

I went and talked to the man who owns it. He has a business on his property and lots of trucks. I can understand that he wants some security lights. But seven of them? And one shining that pink/orange glow into my house every night? He said he plans to build a workshop complex on that property next year, and had no interest in turning off the light.  He's been a good neighbor otherwise.

Ok... the light invades my space. I can't see the stars. I HATE the pink/orange light even worse than the white ones. Each evening I would close the curtains and cuss the light. I found my self saying often, "Oh, I hate that light." Or such like phrases. Only made me madder and more frustrated.

Had to sit myself down and think about it.

1. Not a threat to my life or property, just an annoyance
2. Not worth hassling with an otherwise good neighbor
3. I don't intend to move
4. No legal or official recourse possible, even if I was willing to use them

So, I decided to stop reinforcing the negative hate and frustration simply by no longer repeating the mantra of how much I hate that light. No, it's not easy and I backslide occasionally, but it's getting better. I often don't notice the light now until I go to shut the curtains before bed.

I still can't see the stars, and that makes me sad. But my anger and frustration were doing nothing to solve the problem, made no difference to the neighbor (especially since he knew nothing about it), and only damaged me and my joy in my home.

Some things just have to be lived with. Utopia is not an option. Not even close.

[pelletfarmer]

Your tolerance is admirable ML, but I'd still like to think there's a resolution.  After all, your not seeing the stars is a pretty big deal and he should be able to understand that.  If his angle is security, you could explain (very clearly!) that security comes in many forms and his security will be greatly enhanced having a neighbor who's nearly always there, being grateful for his important (to you) accommodation.  I know I'd go for that logic in a heartbeat.

If he's not quite that logical, there still should be some way that he can have his (lessened!) security and you can have your view; there are lots and lots of ways to direct and block lighting.

If he seriously doesn't care at all about you or your life there, then I think you're exactly right about, "Live and let live."  Hierarchy, of course.

[Cyclonesteve]

I think it's fine for Brownhouse to call a LEO to talk to the other guy. (after talking to him himself and trying to work it out)

Would it be great if he could handle it himself? Yes, of course. Could he handle it himself? Yes. Should he risk losing his property, freedom or his life because it's "wrong" to call a LEO? Not in my opinion. If the guy with the light ML talked about was dumping tires on her property instead of light she shouldn't have to move from her home or risk jail/lose her land in a lawsuit to take care of the problem. Would it be great if she or Brownstone COULD handle it themselves without risking jail or getting sued? Yes, but we don't live in a perfect free world, if it was I would have a pony & a puppy. 

[MamaLiberty]

If his angle is security, you could explain (very clearly!) that security comes in many forms and his security will be greatly enhanced having a neighbor who's nearly always there, being grateful for his important (to you) accommodation.  I know I'd go for that logic in a heartbeat.

He knows I'm armed, and perfectly willing to assist with anything that might happen. Not sure how much help I'd be... especially at night, but that's not really an issue. I KNEW there were yard lights here when I got the place, and made up my mind to put up with it. They were all the "white" ones then, so it wasn't bad. It's the damned pink things I despise. There are five of them in the neighborhood now, but this one is the worst for me. Maybe I could buy him a white bulb?

If he's not quite that logical, there still should be some way that he can have his (lessened!) security and you can have your view; there are lots and lots of ways to direct and block lighting.

My trees won't be tall enough to help any time soon (try never), and I don't know what else might help, but I might be able to approach him with something once they start to build. It will make a big difference how tall the building is and WHERE it is on the property. If the building blocks even some of that light, I'll be happy.

If he seriously doesn't care at all about you or your life there, then I think you're exactly right about, "Live and let live."  Hierarchy, of course.

I don't think it's a matter of him not caring at all about me. I didn't make a big fuss about it, so he probably doesn't understand my problem with it. It's up to me to make a greater effort if it's that important to me.  But in the end, if we choose to live in a neighborhood, even as spread out as this one, we have to endure some things we don't like. We can't all have everything we want.

Here's my neighborhood, as it looked the first year. Not too bad...

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/images/FSW/wyoming/rainbow07.jpg

[Paul Bonneau]

Susan, maybe we ought to start a "Beautiful Wyoming Night Skies Association". I too am irritated with those pole lights, particularly the halogen ones with a lot of blue light that wash out the atmosphere (the yellow sodium are the least harmful). Maybe we can start to talk people into being good neighbors and not using them, or at least into putting covers on them to prevent light escaping the immediate area. We can lobby the legislature - NOT.  

While I fully agree that sending an armed agent over to the neighbor is the same as going over armed yourself (except less risky to yourself and therefore less admirable), we have to realize that in any society there will be means to keep neighbors within reasonable bounds of conduct. But in our society, government has usurped much of the means (there is still the possibility of fencing and the like). It's a bit like the situation with roads. You know in a free society there would be roads, but government has usurped the road function, so we use the government roads. I'm a bit less inclined to look down on someone, particularly someone in a city, for calling an armed agent when all other alternatives don't work (provided its a provocation you can't simply put up with). We maybe tend to judge others more than we should. Anyway it's doubtful a SWAT team will be called out for trash on the neighbor's yard...