No, from a legal, moral, or logical framework, I see no difference between smells that I find objectionable.

But if you want a practical answer, then I suspect the smell of one pony's excrement would be the least pungent of all my examples. Especially since its caretakers can clean up after it in the same way dog owners do. Do you think dogs should be banned because dog poop is smelly?

You're just proving the point that your objection here has no real basis. In fact, it undermines your own political philosophy. And for what? So a kid with cerebral palsy can't have something that makes his life better?

Yet another example of the so-called libertarian ethic in action. Aggression and coercion when it suits you. But I'm sure you'll maintain the illusion of NAP consistency in your views.

Yoo man, my neighbor has a dog. I've never smelt it's **** before and the neighbors don't clean up after it when it ****s. For 15 years it has been ****ting on the same lawn and i've never smelt it. I drive by one farm and I can smell the horse **** from 30 feet away.

Do you see how ponies are different than dogs?


versus



[IMG]http://hikingthecarolinas.com/mount_rogers/shroom_pony_****.jpg[/IMG]

versus



well, it was more effective but the censor is limiting my posting images abilities

My neighbor can smell my dog's feces. People live in dense communities, too. My neighbor's window is literally within arm's reach of my window and if my dog poops outside (about 3 foot wide run between our houses), it'll waft in both our windows on a hot day if the windows are open. Especially since my dog is older with chronic diarrhea. Should I be banned from having a dog on my property? Even if I clean up after it daily? Conversely, I can smell if my neighbor lights up on a summer's day. Should he be banned from smoking on his property?

You still aren't making any argument here other than you don't like the smell of ponies and are using a farm where I'm sure nobody ever cleans up the crap as your basis, and ignoring the real-world questions beyond ponies that I describe above.

In short, you're continuing to tread water in this thread with nothing resembling a legal, moral, or logical argument.

Seriously man? I was just letting you do your thing, I figured everyone else was enjoying laughing along with me.

As to your excellent moral legal and logical arguments that I must now summon the wisdom (from a plurality of Gods from various denominations and religions!!) to refute:

If one is disturbing another's property, either through the smell of ****, or whatever else, one ought to be held responsible for it in a court of law. That was both legal, moral and logical! Yayy.

So, in your example, you should probably give your dog different food, so its not ****ting out liquids, so you an actually pick up after it poops, and so your neighbor doesn't have to smell dog **** - this is not even a libertarian thing, this is simply not being a bad neighbor. If you don't clean up after it poops, and it smells as a result (I mean, right after it poops, don't wait till the end of the day OBVIOUSLY?!?!?!?) then yes, you ought to be held responsible in court - and if, despite numerous court orders telling you to clean up after your ancient dog which probably should be put to sleep by now, yes, you should be banned from owning a dog, as clearly you don't have the intelligence or simply the decency to own an animal.

Taso

You have a wonderful sense of humor. Matched only by your politics insight.

This ****ing tears it. I'm raising therapy lamb in my backyard starting tomorrow.



Cute, therapeutic, and tasty.

AWWWWWW

Just to be clear:

No.

OK, so now on what grounds do you make this differentiation?

(And I know the will of the community does not factor into your decision-making based on your belief system.)

The grounds are: are you damaging someone else's property. Clearly there are grey areas, but morally speaking, you should respect the cautionary principle.

If there are prior agreements, then those go first ofcourse. Another thing you can do is keep good relations with your neighbours. For example if you're planning on a family barbecue which creates noise and smokestink, I'd recommend talking to your neighbours about it beforehand and preferably inviting them.

You also mention bannings, as an anarchist I don't believe in bannings, unless it's your own property ofcourse.

Well, thanks for nothing, I guess. The whole point of my post you quoted was inquiring on why Taso felt some smells (ponies) allowed use of force to prevent and others (cigarettes, campfires, Indian food, factories) don't. You haven't provided grounds for distinction between these categories of smells, which was my question. Perhaps there's a language barrier or something.

cigarettes, campfires, Indian food, are temporary and not against the previously agreed to zoning law. Factories and horse barns full of pony poo are far more permanent and violate previous agreements

The first part of this is basically right. However, if by "ruling body" you meant the court, I'm certain they conducted a legal inquiry. I'm also certain no one has shown any deficiency in their ruling under the zoning statute. Also, just imo, the reporting isn't that bad; it states quotations from people, explains the facts reasonably well, etc.

Nitpick: Zoning is not an agreement; it's a statute. The owners don't get to agree or disagree with it.

And it can change at the whim of the city council.

they can choose to live in a pony zoned area IMO

obv

What grounds do you propose?

And what difference would it make if neither you nor Neils (nor Taso or whomever) had any strong opinions on when a smell is aggressive? I don't think anyone here has claimed to be an expert in dispute resolution.