5 ms·

At the risk of stating the obvious: private property completely avoids this problem. There's a lot of libertarian literature as to why private property is pref

At the risk of stating the obvious: private property completely avoids this problem. There's a lot of libertarian literature as to why private property is preferable to "public goods" in many instances.

dontreact 10y ago
How do you make something like air quality a private good? My point is that it seems like there are many times when I don't see how you could apply the solution of private property.
- oskarth 10y ago
  I haven't read it in detail, but here's the gist from Mises Institute articles that touch on air pollution [1]: > In sum, no one has a right to clean air, but one does have a right to not have his air invaded by pollutants generated by an aggressor. Also see this quote [2]: > There is, first of all, this stark empirical fact: Government ownership, even socialism, has proved to be no solution to the problem of pollution. Even the most starry-eyed proponents of government planning concede that the poisoning of Lake Baikal in the Soviet Union is a monument to heedless industrial pollution of a valuable natural resource. But there is far more to the problem than that. Note, for example, the two crucial areas in which pollution has become an important problem: the air and the waterways, particularly the rivers. But these are precisely two of the vital areas in society in which private property has not been permitted to function. Agree or disagree, this is the typical libertarian response to externalities as far as I know. There's probably more to it w.r.t to public goods as "naturally given", and when something turns into private property, if you are look further into the literature. 1: https://mises.org/library/law-property-rights-and-air-pollution#11 https://mises.org/library/law-property-rights-and-air-pollut... 2: https://mises.org/library/libertarian-manifesto-pollution https://mises.org/library/libertarian-manifesto-pollution EDIT: I'm assuming the question is in good faith. To understand libertarian thought in general and their views on property rights and how contracts organically occur, refer to a primer book by someone like Rothbard. It has nothing to do with denying the social domain of humanity.
  - moultano 10y ago
    LOL, let me personally draw up a contract with every commuter on the neighboring highway to demand compensation for invading my rights. I'm sure we'll come to an amicable and just agreement. Somehow, libertarians get through life without ever becoming aware of the existence of transaction costs. I don't know how they do it.
    - antisthenes 10y ago
      > I don't know how they do it. Just like the other 95% of people: complete economic illiteracy.
    - davidivadavid 10y ago
      Isn't that just a toll road?
      - moultano 10y ago
        A toll road that somehow measures the emissions of the passing vehicles and charges them proportional to their particulate matter content. Maybe someday...
  - dontreact 10y ago
    I believe your argument is that libertarians frame adjusting for externalities as defending rights? If so, then doing so still requires cooperation. I was responding to a comment which seemed to claim that private property was an alternative to social cooperation.
- monort 10y ago
  Air quality is a bad example, it's a public good only for the reason that you can't sue those, who pollute air at your private property.
  - chrishacken 10y ago
    I'm no lawyer, but I would think if you provided sufficient evidence that someone was causing irregular levels of pollution at your private property you'd likely be able to sue them.
    - monort 10y ago
      Can you sue owners of gasoline cars or a coal power station nearby? They are allowed to pollute and not to pay for their externalities.
      - chrishacken 10y ago
        If you owned your home prior to them building the plant, I'd imagine you probably can. (Again, not a lawyer.) However, I was thinking more along the lines of your neighbor installing a coal furnace next door and turning your house black.
moultano 10y ago
The economic definition of a public good is something that cannot be effectively owned. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous in that individuals cannot be effectively excluded from use and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others.[1] Gravelle and Rees: "The defining characteristic of a public good is that consumption of it by one individual does not actually or potentially reduce the amount available to be consumed by another individual." Public goods include fresh air, knowledge, official statistics, national security, common language(s), flood control systems, lighthouses, and street lighting.
- dmichulke 10y ago
  > The economic definition of a public good is something that cannot be effectively owned. While I am aware the definition of a public good, your definition is not appropriate because flood control systems, lighthouses, and street lighting can be owned. The problem the root comment touches is excessive use and for all of the above examples that are scarce (fresh air, common language, flood control systems, lighthouses, street lighting) there can be excessive use to the detriment of others and it can be avoided if these items are private property. For others (the non-scarce - knowledge, language) you cannot take away the rights for others to use it. So there is no real sense in claiming it a public good because there is really nothing. Finally, official statistics and national security depend too much on the definition to say to which category the belong.
  - moultano 10y ago
    The problem in the parent comment is under production, not excessive use.

dontreact 10y ago

How do you make something like air quality a private good? My point is that it seems like there are many times when I don't see how you could apply the solution of private property.

oskarth 10y ago
I haven't read it in detail, but here's the gist from Mises Institute articles that touch on air pollution [1]: > In sum, no one has a right to clean air, but one does have a right to not have his air invaded by pollutants generated by an aggressor. Also see this quote [2]: > There is, first of all, this stark empirical fact: Government ownership, even socialism, has proved to be no solution to the problem of pollution. Even the most starry-eyed proponents of government planning concede that the poisoning of Lake Baikal in the Soviet Union is a monument to heedless industrial pollution of a valuable natural resource. But there is far more to the problem than that. Note, for example, the two crucial areas in which pollution has become an important problem: the air and the waterways, particularly the rivers. But these are precisely two of the vital areas in society in which private property has not been permitted to function. Agree or disagree, this is the typical libertarian response to externalities as far as I know. There's probably more to it w.r.t to public goods as "naturally given", and when something turns into private property, if you are look further into the literature. 1: https://mises.org/library/law-property-rights-and-air-pollution#11 https://mises.org/library/law-property-rights-and-air-pollut... 2: https://mises.org/library/libertarian-manifesto-pollution https://mises.org/library/libertarian-manifesto-pollution EDIT: I'm assuming the question is in good faith. To understand libertarian thought in general and their views on property rights and how contracts organically occur, refer to a primer book by someone like Rothbard. It has nothing to do with denying the social domain of humanity.
- moultano 10y ago
  LOL, let me personally draw up a contract with every commuter on the neighboring highway to demand compensation for invading my rights. I'm sure we'll come to an amicable and just agreement. Somehow, libertarians get through life without ever becoming aware of the existence of transaction costs. I don't know how they do it.
  - antisthenes 10y ago
    > I don't know how they do it. Just like the other 95% of people: complete economic illiteracy.
  - davidivadavid 10y ago
    Isn't that just a toll road?
    - moultano 10y ago
      A toll road that somehow measures the emissions of the passing vehicles and charges them proportional to their particulate matter content. Maybe someday...
- dontreact 10y ago
  I believe your argument is that libertarians frame adjusting for externalities as defending rights? If so, then doing so still requires cooperation. I was responding to a comment which seemed to claim that private property was an alternative to social cooperation.
monort 10y ago
Air quality is a bad example, it's a public good only for the reason that you can't sue those, who pollute air at your private property.
- chrishacken 10y ago
  I'm no lawyer, but I would think if you provided sufficient evidence that someone was causing irregular levels of pollution at your private property you'd likely be able to sue them.
  - monort 10y ago
    Can you sue owners of gasoline cars or a coal power station nearby? They are allowed to pollute and not to pay for their externalities.
    - chrishacken 10y ago
      If you owned your home prior to them building the plant, I'd imagine you probably can. (Again, not a lawyer.) However, I was thinking more along the lines of your neighbor installing a coal furnace next door and turning your house black.

moultano 10y ago

The economic definition of a public good is something that cannot be effectively owned. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous in that individuals cannot be effectively excluded from use and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others.[1] Gravelle and Rees: "The defining characteristic of a public good is that consumption of it by one individual does not actually or potentially reduce the amount available to be consumed by another individual." Public goods include fresh air, knowledge, official statistics, national security, common language(s), flood control systems, lighthouses, and street lighting.

dmichulke 10y ago
> The economic definition of a public good is something that cannot be effectively owned. While I am aware the definition of a public good, your definition is not appropriate because flood control systems, lighthouses, and street lighting can be owned. The problem the root comment touches is excessive use and for all of the above examples that are scarce (fresh air, common language, flood control systems, lighthouses, street lighting) there can be excessive use to the detriment of others and it can be avoided if these items are private property. For others (the non-scarce - knowledge, language) you cannot take away the rights for others to use it. So there is no real sense in claiming it a public good because there is really nothing. Finally, official statistics and national security depend too much on the definition to say to which category the belong.
- moultano 10y ago
  The problem in the parent comment is under production, not excessive use.