2 ms·

I'm not sure how that applies here, where the conflicting activities are both recreational and not producing of income. Enlighten me?

• bko 5y ago
  It's a thought experiment. Don't worry about the specifics. It's that most people normally have a visceral reaction one way or another. But in many cases there could be a voluntary solution where all parties are better off. For instance, consider a noisy neighbor is throwing a party. Suppose I complain but he really values the party and offers me $100 to let him keep the party going another hour. He obviously values it more than $100 so he's better off as am I. Similarly I could pay him to shut off the party, in which case we're also both better off. I didn't mean it literally like the drone payers should pay to use their drones in the park, although that's not a bad idea. The park goers could enjoy better service and accept some noise, making everyone better off. I just thought it was funny seeing someone argue about this and it reminded me of Coase and his work