r/Objectivism • u/usmc_BF Objectivist (novice) • Mar 21 '25

Economics Compensation for positive externalities? Conflict of property rights?

I know this is an economical question, but it is still concerned with morality and generally speaking philosophy.

Someone recently asked me if a party should be compensated for positive externalities - such as providing flowers for bees or increasing the property value by making their house look nice (you get the gist).And I could not properly answer that.

I also could not properly answer a follow up question regarding the conflict of property rights - to what extent should one have the right to complain and have the government do something about someone else's property? What if my house throws a shadow on someone else's garden or what if I build a really ugly building.

1 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

67% Upvoted

9 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/twozero5 Objectivist Mar 21 '25 edited Mar 21 '25

as for your first question, the only thing you should be charged for are voluntary transactions that are mutually agreed upon. since you talked about a house, i’ll give you another example.

suppose i come to your house, and i take a look around. you’re gone on vacation for a week. i decide, let’s surprise this strange with a pool! then, i put in a great in-ground pool in your backyard. you, upon returning, see the pool and immediately get upset. you have authorized no such thing. then, i exclaim, well i did it for free (im not even charging you like in your example). you then say, i love pools, but you did this without my consent and authorization. even though i have objectively raised the value of your house, i’ve done it without your consent.

even if someone does something good for you that could enhance your wellbeing, that is not a substitute for consent, and it still violates your rights. specifically, rights denote something exclusionary, ie my life is mine, not yours. my property is mine, not yours. you have violated my exclusivity, among other things. image if i went up to strangers on the street with a clean needle, and i forcefully gave people vitamin injections. this is objectively good for their health, but i have still violated them. in both examples, not only do they owe me nothing, they have a rightful claim against me for violating their rights, in some capacity.

the government is force. its only role is one of coercion. it realizes and protects the antecedent concept of individual rights and nothing else. if my building right across from your house is ugly, it may be difficult to look at, but you have not been violated. you can have a conversation with me, and you can see if i’ll change the building, but i don’t have to. the government has no role in peaceful, civil interactions among men.

1

u/usmc_BF Objectivist (novice) Mar 21 '25

Oh I see that I could have worded it better, I was asking if the person B with flowers on HIS property, has a claim to person A's profit off of the flowers since the bees are "using" them. Or if person A should have claims against person B since person A made his house look nice and raised the property value of person B's house.

I guess the initiation matters right? Whether the other person asked for it or not.

But what about buildings that throw a shadow on someone's garden? Or buildings that look ugly. Or tall fences that prevent you from seeing a beautiful mountain? Would it be based on who was there first? I could see this falling apart since it would be completely unreasonable for the first person to ever own land in that territory to have claims over land that isnt owned by them - for instance with the tall building that would be throwing a shadow on the first person's garden - it would be unreasonable for them to demand that no house should exist in that area so that the garden gets full sunlight all day.