Perhaps this is nothing new, but noise abatement (both actually existing policies and its further advocacy) are intimately tied to capitalism and convenience.
This is not necessarily to say that those that are advocates of noise abatement are concerned only with capitalism and/or convenience but rather that that is what allows such policies to go forward.
Who passes noise abatement legislation? Who does it harm? Who does it benefit?
The passage of noise abatement campaigns seems to most fully benefit those who keep a consistent 9-5 schedule (when, after all, are ‘quiet hours’) and thus enabling their full participation in capitalist exploitation/alienation. They can hardly give their all if they were kept from their socially mandated 8 hours! The laws often inhibit those who keep to different schedules, who are beholden to different masters (all the shit I have gotten for playing bass during the day because a neighbor didn’t appreciate it…). Those who work a graveyard shift are hardly helped by construction crews who don’t start jack hammering until 9am.
This claim might be contradicted by those who advocate for noise abatement. After all, the worst offenders are hardly boom cars and boom boxes but indifferent corporations and industrial practices. But again, this isn’t to say that the advocates are pro-capitalism (though would many say that they are anti-capitalism?) but rather that the policies that pass, that are enforced are those that serve capitalism and the convenience of the alienated worker who just wants to relax off shift because they lack the time and energy for much else.
Silencing the Machine (as opposed to machines as such) is likely not to be accomplished through straightforward political campaigns for quieter streets and restricted hours for noisy activities. So what, then, the alternative? Perhaps to use noise against the noisy? Perhaps.