Seems to me that it's un-neighborly and arrogant to dismiss
the POV of the rest of the neighbors and go a-smashing anyway. If the
interested party is just you, then go ahead and take whatever action you see
fit. When the neighbors are also interested parties, then you have a social
obligation to work with them to find a consensus.
We have to assume, of course, that there's no police or court we can appeal to, no nuisance ordinance or anything. Because that's obviously the way to go. And we also have to assume there's no police or court who will punish me if I do go and smash the radio. I'm legally free to go do it if I want to and physicall can and am willing to accept that he may come and try to smash my head or burn down my house in return.
So, putting all that into your hypothetical, I'm not sure I agree. If the blaster is waking me up, and he doesn't agree to stop when I call him and ask him politely to, I may be willing to give the neighbors a bit of time to reach an agreed settlement. But if he keeps on waking me up night after night after night and he isn't responding positively to the neighbors' diplomatic efforts, there is a point at which I'm entitled, I think, to say "enough talk. Next time it happens, the radio gets smashed." That's not dismissing their POV, it's saying I have a right to decide how long I will let them try to solve it their way. I don't have to keep going on for ten years listening to the radio because the neighbors still want to resolve it by talking.
Also, I would point out that on the world state, there are always a range of opinions. So it's probably impossible to act at all without, under your definition, dismissing somebody's POV. Just a matter of whose. |
