The Mises Community
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Thank you for your participation and interest in the Mises Community. This software platform has seen its day, however, and so is now closed. We are redoing our entire site, so look for some exciting developments by the end of the year. Thank you for your support of Austrian economics, liberty, and peace.

Property rights and light pollution

rated by 0 users
Answered (Verified) This post has 1 verified answer | 16 Replies | 3 Followers

Not Ranked
Male
49 Posts
Points 790
Edward posted on Wed, Mar 17 2010 11:04 AM

I realize this is a purely theoretic question, but I cant seem to figure it out by myself.

Say there is property X and property Z.

X can infringe on Z's property rights by throwing his trash on Z's lawn, which under libertarian principles is a clear violation of rights. Now X burns his trash and the smoke goes over Z's property. Again a violation of Z's rights. If Z encounters any discomfort on his own property, caused by X's behavior, we can say Z's rights are violated.

Now take less tangible things, like radio waves. Some people might not like being subjected to this, but is it an violation of your property rights? I recall hearing Walter Block speak on this issue, and he commented that since there is no clear harm done, these radio waves do not violate anyone’s property rights, which sounds perfectly reasonable to me. (I could not find the sourcefile on this, so I apologize in case I did not state Dr. Block's opinion regarding this issue correctly)

Now take light. You can see property A from property B and vice versa, which means there is always some light emitted from one property to another. No violation of rights here. Now X decides to paint his house pink, so more pink light will be emitted from X to Z. Z might not like living next to a pink house, but there is no violation of rights here.

Finally X puts this up in his lawn and aims it at Z: http://static.zoom.nl/8FA998E86DD2AF1A65B05DAEE980DE8A-laser-show-awakenings.jpg

Clearly very annoying for Z, but it is still just emittance of light from one to another property, and in principle not different from any different type of lamp on your lawn.

Despite this, my gut tells me rights are being violated here.

-How can we define the border between what is considered a violation and what is not? It sounds like the line is purely arbitrarily.

-Should we contractually define maximum light emission before buying the property?

 

Like to hear your thoughts on this.

 

Answered (Verified) Verified Answer

Top 50 Contributor
1,649 Posts
Points 28,420
Verified by Edward

Conza88:

During the day.. you cannot see it, no? On whose property is the light source, who owns it? Is it during the night? Well buy some blinds, or curtains...

Alternatively; those strobe lights / lasers can cause physical damage... claim it as a threat, or contact his PDA, DRO etc... get an injunction.

Party Laser Blinds Russian Ravers

You don't even need to go that far. Think of Rothbard's example of noise pollution from an airport. Did this person buy a house next to a rave or is the light a new addition? Then you have the answer.

Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.

  • | Post Points: 20

All Replies

Top 200 Contributor
444 Posts
Points 7,395
Suggested by nazgulnarsil

not taking diffuse effects into proper consideration is a major failure of government too.  before we assume that government can solve this problem of precise measurement of small benefits and negatives we must establish exactly where, why, and how government programs will magically differ from market solutions.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 2 of 2 (17 items) < Previous 1 2 | RSS

Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528

Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119

contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises

Mises.org sitemap