But also, that is not what happened. He did what amounted to putting a box on a hill.
Libertarian nonsense falls apart so quickly.
Can you please shed some light on how you think these two things are remotely the same?
(Had to sneak in the pun)
The difference is that Robert Rhinehart isn't setting fire to people or directly harming them.
The difference is that you are trying to directly cause serious bodily harm. This is the worst analogy possible.
The right analogy would be do I have the right to say "he has a parabolic reflector on his property that could start a fire. He needs to remove it."
To me, that is unreasonable.
> Libertarian nonsense falls apart so quickly
Only under the scrutiny of logic with more holes then Swiss cheese. If you'd like to debate libertarian policies then I'm all ears. My email is in my profile.
Ignoring the obvious property rights issues and the fact that the majority of libertarians still support the existence of limited government interference, even the most hardcore anarcho-capitalists who aren't covered by the above still believe in a non-aggression principle which would clearly be violated. But that is small percentage of an already small group.
Aggression is not a trivial concept to define.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle?wprov...
(this is a rough euphemism for a zoning ordinance, where people buy land in cities with standing agreements not to do stupid shit that bothers their neighbors)
FWIW, basically everyone in the world disagrees with you. Sunlight is an essential factor in building codes.
At least we've backed off from the "this is just like building a giant dome over your neighbor's house to deprive them of all sunlight" analogy. That was silly.
Awesome. Can't wait to establish my crack den/brothel/suboxone clinic/for profit prison/coal mine/pesticide factory/eurotrash party house as your next door neighbor.
Zoning regulations a reason.