propertarian nitpicking
What is Austrian Economics and why does it matter?
Having been a regular reader of, occasional writer for, and now sometimes-frenzied editor of Mises.org, I have a pretty good sense of the answer(s). But there's still something really spectacular about listening to Lew Rockwell read "Why Austrian Economics Matters" in his ongoing audiobook podcast series. (Yes, it's the voice, but it's also something more than the voice.)
The problem, though, with knowing deeper theory is that we become nitpickers. Some nits, in fact, won't leave us alone. These are distinctions that few will care about, but once I've spent any time struggling with the particulars of (for instance) property theory, they get a stranglehold on me.
Conventional economics teaches that if the benefits or costs of one person's economic decisions spill over onto others, an externality exists, and it ought to be corrected by the government through redistribution. But, broadly defined, externalities are inherent in every economic transaction because costs and benefits are ultimately subjective. I may be delighted to see factories belching smoke because I love industry. But that does not mean I should be taxed for the privilege of viewing them. Similarly, I may be offended that most men don't have beards, but that doesn't mean that the clean-shaven ought to be taxed to compensate me for my displeasure.
And here I was, just recently stressing that Rothbardian property theory denies that property is physical. It therefore denies that invasions must be physical. If property is defined by use, then an invasion is whatever directly interferes with the use of your property.
If I homestead a patch of land to grow vegetables, and you come along and build a giant structure such that you block the sunlight from reaching my veggies, you have violated my property rights, despite the fact that everything you did was physically on your property and never physically violated mine.
In contrast, your radio transmissions do physically cross the spatial boundaries of my property without my permission, and yet, if they do no harm, there is no invasion.
I understand that Lew Rockwell was countering the absurd intersubjectivism of Coasean theory, and I'm not sure I have a suggested revision to the speech, given what a speech is and what it's supposed to achieve.
But I had a nit to pick, and what better place to pick it than on a private blog?
2 Comments:
If I homestead a patch of land to grow vegetables, and you come along and build a giant structure such that you block the sunlight from reaching my veggies, you have violated my property rights, despite the fact that everything you did was physically on your property and never physically violated mine.
I'm not buying into this argument; if someone builds a cliffside home which now spoils the asthetic of your scenic views of a valley, did they invade your property rights too?
Being that sunlight does not stem from within your property, I would argue that one does not have any "property rights to sunlight", any more than the owner of transistor radio has to the reception of radio waves, and hence there is no invasion of property to speak of.
Sure, the guy who builds the sunlight-sucking tower might be an evil bastard, but isn't he within rights?
Not that I ever fall on the side of the Candlestick makers! ;)
I agree that the person with a nice view doesn't have the right to prevent someone from building a home that (in their opinion) spoils that view. However, I also agree that B.K.'s veggies have a right to their light.
The difference is that anyone can point their eyes at something and render an opinion without doing any actual work themselves. By working the ground and planting specific types of plants, B.K. is obviously investing his labor in an effort to achieve some end that he values. He could have planted them indoors. That would consume resources: indoor living space, potting soil, fertilizer, tap water, and electricity for grow lamps. By planting the veggies outside, he is trying to use natural resources already available on his property: outdoor space, soil that may already have nutrients in it, free water that falls from the sky, and light that reliably illuminates his property every time his chunk of land rotates into the stream coming from the sun (barring the occasional natural obstruction from clouds). He can treat the beam of light just as they treated water rights in the Old West: first in time, first in right. While looking for something to back me up, I found this interesting article.
While the article's title suggests the intent of the article was to dispel myths of constant Old West violence, there are a number of good remarks about the "tragedy of the commons" (when the government interfered), "first in time, first in right" water management, and other ways people benefit more through cooperation rather than through government management. The author of the article is co-author of a book titled "The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier".
Post a Comment
<< Home