Freedom

[almostbusto]

there is no violation of rights in either solution.


this is how the problem is looked at from a libertarian point of view.


there is a problem that is resulting from externalities
all involved in the problem begin to bargain.
they find and voluntary accept a compromise.
result is a voluntary agreement between parties that minimizes (or maximizes in the case of positive externalities) the effects of the externality.

this works great with problems associated with common property. a great example was the american bison back in the days of buffalo bill. back then buffalo were coming property, meaning the only way you could own a buffalo was to shoot it. therefore there was a strong incentive to kill as many buffalo as possible and little incentive to manage the herd. the result was near extinction of the buffalo.

if someone actually owned the buffalo, they obviously would never allow extinction if it was at all possible. instead the would restrict the amount of buffalo that would be allowed to be hunted in order to have a strong enough herd to continue to allowing hunting in the future.

[Poofler]

Ok, that makes sense, just trying to understand where you were drawing the line.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
there is a problem that is resulting from externalities
all involved in the problem begin to bargain.
they find and voluntary accept a compromise.
result is a voluntary agreement between parties that minimizes (or maximizes in the case of positive externalities) the effects of the externality.


[/ QUOTE ]
I agree this is a great solution, but what if say the tree owner refuses to pay the neighbor for the sunlight he's blocking? Is it then up to the neighbor to pay for the plant to be chopped down? What if the tree owner objects to this? What if the tree owner objects to any type of bargain or compromise?

This is why in my mind (thus far, you could certaintly convince me otherwise) either one person has the right to a tree that blocks a neighbor's shade, or the neighbor has a right not to have a tree that blocks shade on his land.
[ QUOTE ]
this works great with problems associated with common property. a great example was the american bison back in the days of buffalo bill. back then buffalo were coming property, meaning the only way you could own a buffalo was to shoot it. therefore there was a strong incentive to kill as many buffalo as possible and little incentive to manage the herd. the result was near extinction of the buffalo.

if someone actually owned the buffalo, they obviously would never allow extinction if it was at all possible. instead the would restrict the amount of buffalo that would be allowed to be hunted in order to have a strong enough herd to continue to allowing hunting in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree ownership solves problems associated with the commons. That's how I arrived at the position I've used in this thread.

[almostbusto]

-Shake

"Everybody has a price"


conceivably there could be problems if they neighbor had extreme contempt for each other, so they turn down every compromise because one enjoys the other's pain.

ultimately a bargain should be able to be struck. if the tree owner won't give in to what the other owner is WILLING to offer, the sun-loving neighbor always has the right to sell his property and move somewhere else.


ultimately, we must recognize that negative externalities are negative so there is no utopian solution where the cost vanishes. the cost will always be there, what is important is to incorporate the cost into the market.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, that makes sense, just trying to understand where you were drawing the line.

[/ QUOTE ]
zOMG don't make anymore posts, your post count is 1337 !! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
-Shake

"Everybody has a price"


conceivably there could be problems if they neighbor had extreme contempt for each other, so they turn down every compromise because one enjoys the other's pain.

ultimately a bargain should be able to be struck. if the tree owner won't give in to what the other owner is WILLING to offer, the sun-loving neighbor always has the right to sell his property and move somewhere else.


ultimately, we must recognize that negative externalities are negative so there is no utopian solution where the cost vanishes. the cost will always be there, what is important is to incorporate the cost into the market.

[/ QUOTE ]
Very good post thanks. I'll have to think some of this stuff over.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
alternately, when the neighborhood was constructed and indvidual lots were sold, contracts could have been setup from the get go that the owners of the lots agree in advance to a certain tree policy. so only people that voluntary accept their sunlight being blocked move in. at first glance this seems like a rip off of locke and his social contract theory however this has a critical difference. that difference is that these contracts are actually voluntary, nobody is compelled into conforming to the society norms, people group together and voluntarily accept norms.

[/ QUOTE ]
I also agree completely with this solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kind of like moving to a "town"? :P

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
alternately, when the neighborhood was constructed and indvidual lots were sold, contracts could have been setup from the get go that the owners of the lots agree in advance to a certain tree policy. so only people that voluntary accept their sunlight being blocked move in. at first glance this seems like a rip off of locke and his social contract theory however this has a critical difference. that difference is that these contracts are actually voluntary, nobody is compelled into conforming to the society norms, people group together and voluntarily accept norms.

[/ QUOTE ]
I also agree completely with this solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kind of like moving to a "town"? :P

[/ QUOTE ]
More like an HOA. Or perhaps Valenzuela Town [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[xorbie]

As usual, too much discussion of legally or socially constructed rights as a definition of freedom, no discussion on actual freedom.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
As usual, too much discussion of legally or socially constructed rights as a definition of freedom, no discussion on actual freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why don't you give it a shot?