tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938311055760665357.post8660208798194013751..comments2024-03-27T03:49:12.592-07:00Comments on Ed Dolan's Econ Blog: The Paradox of Property Rights in ParadiseEd Dolanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757995049056872214noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938311055760665357.post-63270145163074685082018-01-25T11:34:37.140-08:002018-01-25T11:34:37.140-08:00When this was reposted at WriterBeat.com [ http://...When this was reposted at WriterBeat.com [ http://writerbeat.com/articles/20150-The-Paradox-of-Property-Rights-in-Paradise ] a reader asked me to explain more clearly what I mean by the "paradox of property rights in paradise." Here is my reply:<br /><br />Sorry, I had a strict word limit in the original version of this post. Let me try to explain more clearly what I saw as the paradox.<br />What I had in mind is a contrast between traditional and more modern ideas of property rights. Traditionally, property rights have been thought of as protecting the rights of individual owners to use their property as they see fit, so long as their use does not harm others. At least that is true of the the libertarian tradition, in which "does not harm others" meant direct, physical invasion or nuisance, such as building a smoky factory or opening a noisy dragstrip. Beyond that, property owners were supposed to follow a "live and let live" policy. (For more, see, e.g., Murray Rothbard on the physical invasion standard.)<br /> <br />In practice, though, zoning has brought on a new concept of collective property rights, in which owners have essentially a veto over anything other owners do that impacts their property value even in the most subjective way. That can mean building in a style others don't like, building "affordable" housing--since everyone likes low-wage types as workers in their gardens and restaurants, but not as neighbors--or just something as small as hanging clothes on a clothes line.<br /> <br />A further aspect of the paradox is that traditionally, the left has been suspicious of property rights as an institution that supports elites at the expense of the working class, but when the environment is in play, as in this case, the left makes an alliance of convenience with elites by supporting zoning that simultaneously minimizes the human footprint in a pristine environmental area and maximizes property value for the elites who live there.<br /> <br />I don't want to be doctrinaire about this, but it does seem to me that in both prime rural areas like Teton County and prime urban areas like San Francisco, the balance has swung too far in favor of the collective version of property, as embodied in zoning, as opposed to the more traditional, and less elitist, individualist version of property.Ed Dolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08757995049056872214noreply@blogger.com