[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by nature scene

You can't control your "property" like that now, because those property rights don't exist.

But here's what could happen if they did: If your neighbor burns coal and it harms you in whatever way, then you should bargain with him until you reach mutual agreement. The fact that you have a property right for clean air or whatever doesn't necessarily mean that you will stop his activity all together (although it might).

Ronald Coase showed us that what is important is that property rights are established, though it doesn't matter to whom - in the end bargaining will lead to a solution, and an economically efficient one at that. From a legal perspective though, it does matter who has the property rights. (If your coal-burning neighbor had the rights to pollute, then you would be the one who would have to offer something to make him stop.) Either way, there are no inherent rights, they have to be established by law.

I'm not for property rights because then we could enjoin everyone else from doing something, I'm for them because they create the foundation for mutual bargaining. A voluntary society is better than one that exists through coercion.

Our air is dirty precisely because no one owns it - it's called the tragedy of the commons. It happens to all commonly owned resources.

man, it's always a pleasure to read your answers to these questions. you're one of the few truly reasonable posters in a board where most people see discussions as a cock-slapping contest.

interesting points there, i'm not sure where i stand i all of this but i had never heard of ronald coase, so thanks for the new perspectives.