The most obvious solution is in a sacrifice (no, not that kind of sacrifice): individuals trade their individual property for collaborative property; rather than a group of unrelated individuals owning individual homes, they all own the neighborhood and thus decide what actions are reasonable. This is done through conditions a home buyer must agree to before purchasing their home; if these conditions are broken, the home buyer agrees to leave, and if he breaks his word, he agrees to be removed through force. If the home buyer does not prefer any condition, then I imagine there are other neighborhoods which have no conditions for buying and thus can afford the potential of there being a loud neighbor. This works for both houses and apartments; the problem as I see it is generational, where individuals who are born in these homes and grow older realize that they did not implicitly sign any terms of conditions and thus have no obligation to respect them (i.e. the fallacy with the social contract.) This means they could play loud music with no concern for consequence; however, just as a babe cannot sign a contract, he also cannot take ownership over a home (he doesn’t even know what one is.) Therefore, the parents are still liable for breaking the conditions they agreed to and thus the child must go with them; if the parents leave their child the home, ownership of the property changes hands and the new owner must agree to the conditions or leave.
It’s a bit of a messy solution but I don’t believe the conditions of home buying would ever become so overbearing that it could become an issue (nobody would want to move in if you could get evicted for farting too loud…well maybe some people would, but if the conditions became too ridiculous then home sellers would never make money.) Because there is a direct reciprocal in which conditions are agreed upon (if more or less are added for example), there is little room for abuse. As long as people don’t do something silly like appoint a neighborhood king who decided all the conditions a neighborhood would have, or assign to different people different conditions without reason or warning, it should effectively stop whatever bad things a neighbor could do as there is the fear of ostracism.
This is how similarly a smoker and a non-smoker would get along, which is only ever an issue in public spaces such as a restaurant or a mall; the owner of said establishment might declare their property as smoking/non-smoking, and so whichever group has an issue should avoid that establishment. Because businesses do not want this to occur (and to avoid having to deal with smokers in non-smoker establishments as smoker-friendly establishments don’t have an issue with non-smokers), it is very likely that they will compromise and provide enclosed smoker-friendly areas. None of this is new to us; businesses have been doing this for a long time. Only difference is, a smoker who insists on smoking in a non-smoking establishment has the property owner to answer to, rather than the government (technically the same thing since the gov basically owns everything.)
But whose rights are being violated? We only have to ask whose property is being unwillingly damaged; the smoker always willingly damages his own person so that’s not the issue; non-smokers don’t necessarily care whether smokers are around, so that’s also not the issue; the individual who does not want to inhale smoke is a likely candidate, however, it is not always the case that he is the victim: if an anti-smoker goes into a smoking-only room, he cannot expect everyone to leave for his sake as he willingly put himself in harms way (thus invalidates whatever verbal cues he gives as to how much he dislikes smoke); this is true for any establishment which is smoker-friendly, as the anti-smoker realizes what he’s getting into before he goes inside. It is ultimately the property owner of the given space whose rights are potentially violated, as they have the say in how their territory will operate; if a man smokes on another man’s property that has been designated as non-smoking, then it is the smoker who has violated his property; however, if a man tears cigs out of smokers hands due to a distaste in smoking on a man’s property that is designated as smoker-friendly, it is the anti-smoker who is the violator. A man can protect his property by preventing another from entering; so, if a smoker refuses to comply, he can be forcibly removed, and if an anti-smoker is causing trouble, likewise. A business which does this without any real reason is not necessarily wrong–it is their property we tread on–but it’s a very easy way to lose customers, so it’s very unlikely to happen often. The ability to freely associate is the key factor in all of this; it’s what separates everything that’s been said here from how gov handles things, which is compulsory and thus the foundation of many corresponding problems as one might expect from a violent monopoly.
But what stops people from deciding they’ll collaboratively own an entire nation i.e. something like what we have now? Nothing; if a majority of the population can decide on all the same conditions, then that’s what will happen and the rest of us who disagree are SoL. Because people are so diverse and have such different conditions of living comfortably, there is (normally) a natural defense against the social version of the 51% attack. The only difference between here and the anarchic system is, there’s a huge group which is propagandized to believe the state’s actions are legitimate. Once most people believe voluntary association is the way to go, there’s nothing to worry about. It’s kinda funny to say this as the USA’s gov in particular has such a low approval rating, but because people think it can’t work without them, it remains.
