"There is no constitutional right to high property value."
True. No argument there.
"Unless the land when purchased has a stipulation..."
Here's the problem with your response: you're arguing the specific here. In other words, it's not about what's legal right now, but whether or not regulating what can be done on one's property *should* be regulated. I can make a strong case that I'm simply doing what I want to do on my own property. You could make an equally strong case that what I'm doing on my property is hurting your economic well being, which hurts your personal liberty. Who's right? How do you know?
Again, this is the problem with libertarianism. Define "liberty". You say that my right to throw my fist stops at your face. But my fist is always going to be further away from my perspective, and your face always closer from yours. There is no such thing as objective 'reason'. Or objective 'fairness'. Or 'equality'.
And that gets me to the second post, where you say that force is the standard to know if rights are being violated. That tells me you're probably a Rand fan. But, if there's no God, and we need an 'objective' answer to what 'reason' or 'freedom' or 'liberty' means, to whom do we appeal? Rand says that two 'rational' people can't disagree, but we're disagreeing right here. And what Rand doesn't tell you is that this statement--"Two rational people cannot have disagreements"--which she repeats often in her works, is *non-negotiable* to her 'philosophy'. Because if two rational people can honestly disagree, then it's not Objectivism, it's Subjectivism, or better yet Nonsensism.
So, on the issue of force, if we can't agree on which version of 'liberty' or 'truth' or whatever should prevail, eventually someone is going to have to come in and pick between competing visions of what these ideas mean. And once we arrive at what 'liberty' means, and you or I still dissent, how do we enforce the decision? Answer: force. Thus, Rand's entire philosophy relies on arbitrary decisions on what abstract concepts mean, which are then backed up by guns. Because if Objectivism isn't backed up by force, how will it prevail? By appealing to God?
No its not a problem. Economic well being is not necessarily personal liberty.
This is what liberty means.
The condition of being free from restriction or control.
The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing
Therefore, if I wanted to move into a development and a stipulation on my contract said I had to keep my property looking groomed to keep property values high and to be considerate of my neighbors, then I have voluntarily entered into an agreement as such. If I purchase property and there is no such stipulation, then it is not violate a contract (fraud), it is not commiting force on someone else, and therefore there is no ground to hold your neighbor accountable.
Again, this is the problem with libertarianism. Define "liberty". You say that my right to throw my fist stops at your face. But my fist is always going to be further away from my perspective, and your face always closer from yours. There is no such thing as objective 'reason'. Or objective 'fairness'. Or 'equality'.
This makes no sense. Either you are forcing me to do something or you are not. There is no 'grey area' as you would like myself to believe. Making physical contact or threating is using force. Asking a neighbor to stop doing something that you do not like is completely another.
And that gets me to the second post, where you say that force is the standard to know if rights are being violated. That tells me you're probably a Rand fan. But, if there's no God, and we need an 'objective' answer to what 'reason' or 'freedom' or 'liberty' means, to whom do we appeal? Rand says that two 'rational' people can't disagree, but we're disagreeing right here. And what Rand doesn't tell you is that this statement--"Two rational people cannot have disagreements"--which she repeats often in her works, is *non-negotiable* to her 'philosophy'. Because if two rational people can honestly disagree, then it's not Objectivism, it's Subjectivism, or better yet Nonsensism.
I haven't read any of Rand's work except Capitalism: The Unknown ideal. Reason is not the discussion at hand, liberty and freedom are, which I've already defined.
So, on the issue of force, if we can't agree on which version of 'liberty' or 'truth' or whatever should prevail, eventually someone is going to have to come in and pick between competing visions of what these ideas mean. And once we arrive at what 'liberty' means, and you or I still dissent, how do we enforce the decision? Answer: force. Thus, Rand's entire philosophy relies on arbitrary decisions on what abstract concepts mean, which are then backed up by guns. Because if Objectivism isn't backed up by force, how will it prevail? By appealing to God?
No, you have it backwards. You have to define force first, before you can define liberty. Liberty could easily be said as free from (initial) force. I should have said initial force, as once you violate the rights of others, you have given up your rights in the process. When you are not (initially) forcing people to do anything, you have liberty.
Sure there is. Reason is a mental process, that follows the rules of logic. The scientific method uses reason to determine the truth, or at least gage what is most likely the truth. That process is objective, if the reasoner(s) are honest.
Whether, or not, some transaction can be judged as objectively fair depends on having objective principles to gage the particulars in the transaction. Objective fairness occurs when 2, more more parties contract, or agree to some transaction in the abscence of fraud and coercion.
Equality is an exact term that denotes equivalence. When applied to social condition, it must be further qualified if it's to end up having an objective meaning. The only objective use of the term in social condition I can think of is if it's used to qualify oppotunity, or treatment under the law. That can only occur under a condition of Freedom that allows the individual to retain sovereignty of will.
"And once we arrive at what 'liberty' means, and you or I still dissent, how do we enforce the decision? Answer: force."
The only time the use of force is justified is to protect Life and rights. You certainly can't argue that the use of force to determine the meaning of anything is justified. What is suggested in this quote, is that the imposition of social order by force is somehow justified. Protecting Individual Life and sovereignty of will(Freedom) is the only objective justification for the use of force. That is because it allows each individual to retain his identity and nature(his essence). All other motivations for forceful action are a clash of wills that are a direct attempt to dominate the will of another individual.