What do libertarians think about light pollution?

[Mahkato]

For most people, light pollution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution) is probably not too high on their list of priorities for problems we need to solve. But it does have numerous adverse effects, and I can't see how this can be 'solved' without legislation.

Do I have a right to experience a dark sky if I'd like to, without having to live 200 miles away from the nearest major city?

The value provided by living near a population center is greater than the value I place on a dark sky, but the free market doesn't seem to be providing any dark-sky population centers.

Is it okay for a city or county to proclaim itself 'dark-friendly' and regulate all new outdoor lighting installations?

[Elwar]

Your property rights extend to the end of your property. Anything beyond that can be considered an infringement upon the rights of others.

If you can show financial damage from someone else's light polution, I believe you should be able to sue them for damages.

[erowe1]

For most people, light pollution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution) is probably not too high on their list of priorities for problems we need to solve. But it does have numerous adverse effects, and I can't see how this can be 'solved' without legislation.

Do I have a right to experience a dark sky if I'd like to, without having to live 200 miles away from the nearest major city?

The value provided by living near a population center is greater than the value I place on a dark sky, but the free market doesn't seem to be providing any dark-sky population centers.

Is it okay for a city or county to proclaim itself 'dark-friendly' and regulate all new outdoor lighting installations?

I can't really sympathize. The choice between living in a densely populated area and a rural area has advantages and disadvantages on both sides. One of the things about a densely populated area that some people might consider a disadvantage (and others might consider it an advantage) is so-called light pollution. If you consider this a disadvantage that is outweighed by other advantages, well then your decision about where to live is made. But there's no such thing as a right to see a dark sky no matter where you are. You might as well dream up a right for city dwellers to see a mountainous landscape instead of a skyline with buildings. I can't see the sense in that.

However, if there are a lot of people like you, then I disagree that legislation would be necessary. Regulation of light usage could be incorporated into an entirely voluntary arrangement. Proponents of dark-sky-big-cities could buy up enough property somewhere to build a big city (or buy up an existing big city) and enter a contract agreeing to limit their usage of lights to certain times and amounts, just like a neighborhood association agreement.

[dannno]

Your property rights extend to the end of your property. Anything beyond that can be considered an infringement upon the rights of others.

If you can show financial damage from someone else's light polution, I believe you should be able to sue them for damages.

What if you put a bunch of stadium lights on your property and shined them all into your next door neighbor's bedroom window??

http://static.flickr.com/92/245476507_d9ea1d0b8f.jpg

[Elwar]

What if you put a bunch of stadium lights on your property and shined them all into your next door neighbor's bedroom window??

http://static.flickr.com/92/245476507_d9ea1d0b8f.jpg

Just as I said...you can sue for damages...lost sleep, etc.

The same could be said for water draining from someone's property, tree limbs encroaching, etc.

Air and water pollution should have been left to private detectives to trace the root of the problem and sue the polluter. As opposed to making the companies free from lawsuits in exchange for various environmental regulations.

[krazy kaju]

You can eliminate light "pollution" if you wish to eliminate the human race.

[Kludge]

The sun (and all other light sources) should be blocked on all property whose owners do not consent.

-- Air flow too...

And water.

Send the rain clouds to D.C.

Who's buying the yard signs?!

[nate895]

This is where commons sense comes into play. Shining a search light into a neighbor's bedroom is a violation of their rights. However, you don't have the "right" to see a dark sky any more than you have the right to drive a car. You have that right if you can afford the privilege of owning a car, or to live far enough away from a city.

Same thing with other forms of pollution, driving a car isn't violating other people's property rights, but dumping sludge or pumping smog in mass quantities is, and therefore you have the right to charge them for the privilege to do that.

[krazy kaju]

What Nate said.

[Danke]

The sun (and all other light sources) should be blocked on all property whose owners do not consent.

-- Air flow too...

And water.

Send the rain clouds to D.C.

Who's buying the yard signs?!

Don't make me sic Dr. D on you again!

[RedStripe]

Common law nuisance covers most things. There's no such thing as the right to a dark sky, unless you have contracted for that or are a beneficiary of some sort of covenant that requires dim lights at night.

Additionally, if you want to blame light pollution on the free market, you should take a look at the state first. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli13.html) Who do you think installs all of the worthless street lights that illuminate miles of roadway with no one on them?

[heavenlyboy34]

For most people, light pollution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution) is probably not too high on their list of priorities for problems we need to solve. But it does have numerous adverse effects, and I can't see how this can be 'solved' without legislation.

Do I have a right to experience a dark sky if I'd like to, without having to live 200 miles away from the nearest major city?

The value provided by living near a population center is greater than the value I place on a dark sky, but the free market doesn't seem to be providing any dark-sky population centers.

Is it okay for a city or county to proclaim itself 'dark-friendly' and regulate all new outdoor lighting installations?

Why can't individuals work out an agreement with the "offender" in private arbitration? :confused: That is a more civilized, inexpensive way to handle the issue. :)

[Krugerrand]

What if you put a bunch of stadium lights on your property and shined them all into your next door neighbor's bedroom window??

http://static.flickr.com/92/245476507_d9ea1d0b8f.jpg

That would call for a solar powered stereo with very loud bass pointed back at them.

[RedStripe]

That would call for a solar powered stereo with very loud bass pointed back at them.

Or just a big mirror

[Kludge]

Why can't individuals work out an agreement with the "offender" in private arbitration? :confused: That is a more civilized, inexpensive way to handle the issue. :)

God's above the law.

You try to sue Him and suddenly all the Fundies say yeh don't even deserve rights! Well, I (unlike the self-appointed Nanny) reserve rights, including my right to tell the bastards off!

[heavenlyboy34]

God's above the law.

You try to sue Him and suddenly all the Fundies say yeh don't even deserve rights! Well, I (unlike the self-appointed Nanny) reserve rights, including my right to tell the bastards off!

lolz...nice Kludgery there! ;)

[axiomata]

Traditionally property rights have been understood to include the land you own as well as the stuff under your property (oil etc) as well as the same area projected into the sky. In the more practical sense this means if you own a home on a hill over looking a great beach someone can put a giant condo in front and block your view and you have no recourse since you don't own the beach. However, no one can say build a bridge over your house and block your view of the sky directly above.

I'm not sure of any specific cases where a private property owner sued for light pollution in his portion of the sky but IMO, it would be a valid claim.

[sailor]

For most people, light pollution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution) is probably not too high on their list of priorities for problems we need to solve. But it does have numerous adverse effects, and I can't see how this can be 'solved' without legislation.

Do I have a right to experience a dark sky if I'd like to, without having to live 200 miles away from the nearest major city?

The value provided by living near a population center is greater than the value I place on a dark sky, but the free market doesn't seem to be providing any dark-sky population centers.

Is it okay for a city or county to proclaim itself 'dark-friendly' and regulate all new outdoor lighting installations?

I don`t think there is really a Libertarian view on this. It is something that courts should work out building on existing common law and taking into account the rights of property. And here is where I`d say Libertarianism kicks in, the Libertarian view is that courts should be as decentralised as possible and fred from state and government control as possible in order to enable them to develop the best possible law and make the best rulings.

[ChaosControl]

All lights out at 10:00pm law in congress!

lol

[acptulsa]

What if you put a bunch of stadium lights on your property and shined them all into your next door neighbor's bedroom window??

http://static.flickr.com/92/245476507_d9ea1d0b8f.jpg

If I'm the next door neighbor, I'd get some really black shades, open them when I want to read and save electricity, close them when I want to sleep and be pleased during the winter, cover the wall with foil in the summer, and buy stock in the local electric company.

[Elwar]

Why can't individuals work out an agreement with the "offender" in private arbitration? :confused: That is a more civilized, inexpensive way to handle the issue. :)

exactly

[RCA]

I've always wondered the same thing about sound pollution.

[Ninja Homer]

I would have no problem whatsoever with a city or even a state law that required all street lights to only illuminate down. Street lights are by far the biggest problem for light pollution, and most of them shine 30% of their light into the sky. If they used street lights that only shined down, they could use bulbs that take 30% less power, have 30% less electric bill, and it would greatly reduce light pollution. This site explains it very well: http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~atolea/second/page1.html

That being said, I don't like street lights anyway. I see their need in a city with a night life, but why not turn them off (or dim them a lot) an hour after bars close? I've lived in suburbs that have street lights, and suburbs that don't, and I preferred not to have them in a suburb. People go out just as much at night, they just carry flashlights, and then you don't have street lights shining in your window all night. I've never understood all the street lights on highways and freeways. Does it help anything at all? You have to have your headlights on while driving anyway, and it's not like people go out for walks on highways and freeways at night

As far as the libertarian view of street lights, I think if roads were privately owned, they'd put money into keeping the roads drivable rather than keeping them lit, and if there was an area where light would help the road be more safe, they'd light it in the most efficient way possible, which means lighting the road and not the sky.

[MozoVote]

I've lived in cities where I would mow the lawn at night. People really seem to like having a lot of light at night to feel safe, but it can get over-the-top.

[shenlu54]

Some people love light at night,some don't.

If you have any problem with them,sue them,let the jury make the judgement.

It is not necessary for the federal government to make a federal law on this topic,it's the local and individual business.

[samiam5211]

Do I have a right to experience a dark sky if I'd like to, without having to live 200 miles away from the nearest major city?

No. You have the right to experience a dark sky. You don't have the right to have that experience brought to you if you choose to live in a city.



The value provided by living near a population center is greater than the value I place on a dark sky, but the free market doesn't seem to be providing any dark-sky population centers.

This is something that you weigh when you make a choice. You prioritize things however you like, and make the choice that matches those priorities.

Part of the problem we have now with government/economics is the people expecting the government to legislate all of the cons out of our lives.




Is it okay for a city or county to proclaim itself 'dark-friendly' and regulate all new outdoor lighting installations?

not through regulation.

If enough people wanted a dark-friendly city that their willing participation in turning out there lights allowed the night sky to be visible then you'd be free to organize a coordinated flipping of the light switch, but not regulation.

For everything government gives you it takes something away. The something taken away always involves the removal of a certain amount of liberty, often disproportionate to the value of whatever it is government gave you in exchange.

[Brian4Liberty]

Related story:

I know a guy whose neighbor built a new house with a living room window about 10 feet away (and slightly higher) from his uncurtained bathroom window. He had told him not to put a window there, at least not a clear window. So he mounted a spot light right above his bathroom window on the outside, pointed directly in the new living room. Connected it to his bathroom switch, so that any time anyone entered the bathroom, on came the spot light. The neighbor opaqued the window, and he removed the spotlight... no government necessary.

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

The free market should be taking care of this. Lighting up airspace uses a lot of energy and gets expensive. Apparently it is still easier for businesses to get an operating loan than to cut expenses. Likewise, it is easier for governments to squeeze money out of taxpayers than to spend it responsibly.

In most cases, every other streetlight could be shut off and no one would even notice. In addition, inexpensive reflectors could be installed on the lights to direct the excess light downward where it is needed. Half the number of bulbs would need to be burning and the bulbs that were burning could be half the wattage.

Something is skewing the free market at this point so that energy consumption is not being regulated by market forces. I think that is the heart of the light pollution issue.

Edit: Sorry Ninja Homer, I missed your post. Looks like you already covered that.:)
It happens a lot. I should really change my signature to "I agree with Ninja Homer".

[krazy kaju]

I've always wondered the same thing about sound pollution.

I forget where, but somewhere Rothbard proposed a homestead basis for sound pollution. Basically, if you live in an unpopulated area and blast music so it can be heard for miles around, no problem. If people begin to move in and hear your music, still no problem, since you homesteaded those soundwaves.

[krazy kaju]

Related story:

I know a guy whose neighbor built a new house with a living room window about 10 feet away (and slightly higher) from his uncurtained bathroom window. He had told him not to put a window there, at least not a clear window. So he mounted a spot light right above his bathroom window on the outside, pointed directly in the new living room. Connected it to his bathroom switch, so that any time anyone entered the bathroom, on came the spot light. The neighbor opaqued the window, and he removed the spotlight... no government necessary.

Spot lights are fun to mess with. :D

[axiomata]

I forget where, but somewhere Rothbard proposed a homestead basis for sound pollution. Basically, if you live in an unpopulated area and blast music so it can be heard for miles around, no problem. If people begin to move in and hear your music, still no problem, since you homesteaded those soundwaves.
http://mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf

I think he brings up the homesteading sound around page 145 but the rest of the paper is interesting as well.

[Athan]

If I'm correct its a mix of what Nate and Elwar have posted. A community can band together in an association to deal with minimizing light pollution. The state should NOT be involve in telling other individuals what to do on their property however. Though an organized community however they can make the offender less comfortable with keeping on the lights to a degree that it is bothering neighbors.

[BenIsForRon]

I think its a role for local government, its that simple. I don't think people have enough time to band together and create non-government community operations for every single issue like this. I just don't see any other practical solution. If I was in government, I would totally get behind legislation telling walmart to shut their friggin parking lot lights off at night.

And guys, coal is cheap, so people burn the fuck out of it. Until it gets expensive, they're gonna keep doing it, unless they start caring more about the environment/light pollution/responsible resource use. The free market doesn't always deal with things like future scarcity of resources or environmental damage, especially if consumers are not educated. I'm not saying government intervention is better, but on things like this a balance between the two is probably the best way to go.