Air Pollution, Noise Pollution, Rothbard’s Analysis is Best
December 10, 2016
From: MB
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 11:22 AM
To: walter block
Subject: Noise Homesteading
Why is it justified to demand others to stop vibrating your air (sound), whereas it is not reasonable to stop them from breathing? How far can we go with a priori legal reasoning and are we justified in using the ‘reasonable man’ as the basis for our legal system?
Dear MB: In other than exceptional cases, it is not justified to demand that others stop speaking in a normal voice (low decibels), nor in the case of exhaling CO2. However, if someone created a machine that exuded lots of CO2 this could well be a trespass, just as would be amplifying the human voice with a loudspeaker. The difference between the two is that even “heavy” breathing can rarely disrupt anyone, but very loud noises certainly can. The best thing ever written on this issue of negative externalities, as I never tire of saying, is this: Rothbard, Murray N. 1982. “Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution,” Cato Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, Spring; reprinted in Economics and the Environment: A Reconciliation, Walter E. Block , ed., Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, 1990, pp. 233-279; http://mises.org/story/2120; http://www.mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf;
https://mises.org/library/law-property-rights-and-air-pollution-0
Brooks Brothers, Christmas 1947