fagin%ji@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU (08/15/86)
Hank Walker writes: > I think property ownership is similar to freedom of speech. I agree. Both ought to be vigorously and zealously defended. > One don't [sic] have an absolute right to freedom of speech, because > that may interfere with the rights of others ("fire" in the > theater). Bad example. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is a violation of the property rights of those present: they paid to see a movie undisturbed by people yelling "fire". No need to deal with the free speech issue here; it's better understood in terms of what people paid for. > Similarly, I think one doesn't have > an absolute right to do what one wants with property because that > may interfere with the rights of others. I agree, but if it *doesn't* interfere than you ought to be allowed to do it. > ... On the other hand, if you let your house look like a trash > heap, then this will bring down my property value. Now it is also > the case that if you develop some piece of forest next to my house, > my property values will fall. Therefore the situation is one of > trading off your rights to modify your property and my rights to be > protected from property-damaging effects of those modifications. > There's no black and white. Seems pretty clear to me. If an action I perform will damage your property then I shouldn't be allowed to do it, otherwise I should. Your problem is that your confusing a drop in your property value with actual damage. One is a violation of your rights, while the other is the result of other people's voluntary choices. If the person next door lets his house look like a trash heap, you point out that other people will not be willing to pay as much for your home. Does it follow from this that your neighbor *must* keep his home in reasonable shape? If A's failing to perform a certain action will reduce the amount of dollars B is willing to pay for something C owns, does C have sufficient grounds to force A to perform the action? You would seem to think yes, at least in the case of the next door neighbor and his trashy house. I disagree, thinking instead that the beneficial consequences of a person performing an action are not sufficient grounds for compelling them. There is no moral right to be protected from your property decreasing in value. You have no right to prevent the amount of money people are willing to pay for something you own from going down, any more than they have the right to prevent it from going up. > Property owners naturally want to be protected from property- > damaging effects. How true. Businesses naturally want to be protected from competition, (a very serious "property damaging effect"), unions want to be protected from market wages, the nuclear power industry wants to be protected from bearing full responsibility in the event of an accident, and so on. That doesn't mean that such protection should be granted. --Barry -------