In Ripstein’s discussion of externalities, he mentions how
externalities “generate no issues of right” (260). Even though this claim might
be partially true, Ripstein only addresses positive externalities and does not
really mention negative externalities. In both the case of increase foot
traffic due to the nearby hotel and the increase of bees will increase the
welfare of the third party. In cases of negative externalities, a person’s
right might be restricted. For example, if I were to blast music in my room
every morning at 6 AM, I would be disturbing all of my neighbors. I am
exercising my freedom but all of my neighbors are asleep, so playing music will
negatively affect a third party. If they wake up, I am disturbing their sleep
and if they can’t go to sleep because of me, I am taking away their right to
sleep. In this case, instead of an undersupply of good there is a deadweight
loss caused by my actions. I wonder how Ripstein would account for such
actions, or if anyone would be called to be accountable for actions like that
at all. In page 244, Ripstein does give a couple examples of negative
externalities but says that one does not have the right to do anything until it
directly affects one property. This makes me wonder what sort of externality
can be caused and give someone the entitlement to complain about something
without it physically affecting one’s property.
Cristina,
ReplyDeleteYour focus on externality is really interesting! But I have a different view on the example you provide. If there is not a public decision on blasting music, then one can play music at any time they want. But the property right (land right) has extended to the sky above the land, and the underground below it, as Ripstein claims. So the property right could also extend to the noise one can hear on one's land. So one's right is violated in that sense. I am not sure if I am going to far on Ripstein's claim though, it could be wrong.