MeekAndMild,
Thanks for the welcome! I've been lurking for about 5 years now, so definitely not new to the board, just a new poster.
Danzig and divemedic,
There are differing views on how far libertarianism actually goes. Many view libertarianism as being able to do whatever you want with your own property, without interference from others (especially the government). The anarchy analog would be doing whatever you want with your neighbor's property, which is definitely NOT where I fall.
It could be argued that everything that you do affects someone else in one way or another. It's a fact of life. However, while your neighbor can indeed take you to civil court over just about anything, in this case I believe that your neighbor should lose. You have a right to do what you want with your property, and to be free of interference from others. That does not mean that you have a right to interfere with others to make the value of your own property go up (or keep it from going down).
Let me give two examples.
First, let's say that you don't like the color that your neighbor has painted his house. It is an absolutely hideous puke green color, and just by being there it will cause your property value to drop. That doesn't give you the right to make your neighbor re-paint his house. While you could take it to court, any reasonable judge would laugh you out of his courtroom. An unkempt lawn is another level of the same issue.
Second, let's use an example from government. Let's say that the state installs an interstate highway right through the property next door, and as a result the noise causes your property value to drop overnight. Should the state be required to compensate you for the drop in value? The courts have held that it does NOT. If all possible use for your land has disappeared, then yes, they are required to take your land through Eminent Domain. But if there is still value in the land and it can still be used, even if not for the original use that you intended for it, there is no requirement that the state compensate you for the loss in value.
Now if you have bought land in a city with a pre-existing ordinance, or property under a home-owners' association covenant, then of course you should be required to abide by the covenant. You knew (or should have known) what you were getting into when you bought. I will personally never belong to an association because I value my liberty more than my property values, but people have the freedom to make that association.
While I do personally keep my yard neat, I will stand up for the right of my neighbor to not do the same. I may not like the junkyard next door, but I would rather he have the right to have a junkyard than to have laws that infringe on what I can do with my own land. In my opinion, the only way around this liberty is to make a covenant with your neighbors, or to pass a local ordinance that grandfathers in anyone who doesn't agree with losing their freedom.
I'm sorry for the long post, but personal freedom is one of our most precious rights, and one that has been disappearing for far too long. It is something that I feel strongly about, and something that we as gun owners should be very, very careful about infringing upon.
So is this something that falls under the label of libertarianism, rather than anarchism? Some will differ, but I believe that it absolutely does.
Man, my neighbor was livid but she got her just desserts; came in one afternoon after a three week straight of not seeing my own house or bed, she walks over the street to start griping at me, but apparently she was cooking something on the stove and it caught fire.