Christopher Whipple wrote:
> Agreed. The question of aesthetics is an interesting one - I recall
> on third avenue a balcony with a large number of pink flamingos,
> garden gnomes, and other assorted lawn decorations. What an
> eye-sore! This is a person's self-expression, but does it take away
> from the value of the surrounding property? Does it matter if it
> does? If your neighbor keeps broken down cars and major appliances
> on his or her front lawn, do you have the right to complain? I grew
> up in a relatively isolated area, where neighbor interactions were
> few and far between, so I'm biased to just ignore the things that
> bother me.
### I like the idea of trade as the fair way of solving conflicts. If you
assume a system with property rights, fair trade is a voluntary exchange of
considerations between two or more well-informed parties. Voluntary is
defined here as "not influenced by the direct threat of death or severe
physical suffering". The above is somewhat simplified but should be
sufficient to present my case.
Once property rights are partially defined, their exact implementation can
evolve as a result of trade. E.g., the previously undefined issue of pink
flamingoes can become a matter of an exchange between the owner of the
flamingoes, and persons with an interest in their removal. The removers may
offer a financial or other enticement for the flamingo-lover to discontinue
their display, and perhaps even assume a contractual responsibility to
refrain from visual modifications of his balcony without approval of the
payers, and furthermore, to sell his property only subject to the same
restrictions.
Such a modification of the property rights could become a de facto standard
within the neighborhood with sufficiently large numbers of esthetically
sensitive persons, willing to pay for the privilege of seeing only
flamingo-free balconies. The restrictions are voluntarily assumed (both for
the original flamingo-lover and for the buyers of his property), and agree
with our intuitive, evolved notions of fairness, and with results of
computer simulations of optimal distribution of resources. This standard, in
effect a form of property similar to an easement, could be held by landlords
and tenants organized according to various principles, which I will not
enumerate here.
Since subsequent generations of prospective house buyers in the neighborhood
would make their decisions knowing in advance its peculiar rules,
self-selection would assure the optimal distribution of humans within each
neighborhood - persons with similar preferences would gravitate naturally
towards the same places, with neighborhoods offering the best compromise
between flamingo-lovers and -haters enjoying the greatest popularity, but
still allowing the extremes to form their own communities.
The above is in exquisite agreement with the best facets of human nature,
and the Golden Rule, the only rule I needed to assume here.
In this way, spontaneous order emerges, based on the contract law, with
strictly voluntary commitments allowing (possibly) optimal appearance of the
average balcony. It should be contrasted with the zoning law - enacted by
persons who do not have to pay for its implementation (if the city council
decides you flamingoes are bad, they won't pay for them or for your mental
anguish), are a form of expropriation, usually over large areas (based on
political considerations rather than affinities of free citizens),
destroying diversity (if flamingos are banned in The Plantations, they will
be also removed from Little Boheme), and, most importantly, enforced by a
threat of death or physical suffering.
This is the consequentialist argument against zoning laws. They suck because
things are not as good as they could have been.
To approach the issue from another direction - It is the ultimate indignity
to be threatened with violence not for the sake of saving a human life, or
other lofty goal, but to satisfy somebody's hatred for plastic flamingos. I
see it as a direct violation of the Golden Rule (I leave the exact reasoning
for another post).
This is the normative argument against esthetic zoning laws. They suck
because they mess with people's lives for no good reason.
So we have both a deontological and a utilitarian case against these laws.
They are bad because they feel bad, and because they make things worse.
--------
>
> As for zoning laws, they can go both ways. "Sorry, you can't live in
> that gorgeous loft, it's zoned for industrial use - go try living in a
> nice cookie-cutter apartment building." But on the other hand...
> "We're sorry, you can't build your power/chemical plant or install
> high-tension power lines near that school."
### In the voluntary system, the plant builder can pay the school owner to
move his school, or the school owner and the parents can sue if the plant's
activity results in death or physical suffering of the children. The balance
of such considerations will result in the optimal placement of
infrastructure, as per Coase's theorem.
Rafal
Received on Tue Oct 22 15:36:28 2002
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 08 2003 - 11:37:39 CEST