Comments on: Dealing With Eyesores in an Anarcho-Capitalist Society

By: Skyler Collins

Skyler Collins — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 17:21:00 +0000

Indeed, loss of value is not a form of property damage. A Rothbardian should now that. ^_^

By: Rudd-O

Rudd-O — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 06:03:00 +0000

You should have distinguished between real eyesores (refer to the Epic Lawn Chair story on the Web) and pollution. Not making that distinction reduces the value of your post. :-)

By: Michael Suede

Michael Suede — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 02:26:00 +0000

Yeah, you are right that pollution needs to be some kind of physical violation of their property’s integrity.

I’ll think about a better response.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 01:16:00 +0000

“The eyesore is in fact a form of pollution (unintended damage to the value of other peoples’ private property.)”

Pollution cannot sensibly be defined as damage to the _value_ of property. Rather it is a form of damage to the physical integrity of property–akin to a brick through the window.

Nobody has a right to the _value_ of their property, since value is subjective and exists in people’s heads. Consider the entrepreneur who creates a brilliant new mode of transport, he hasn’t infringed on the rights of car manufacturers, even though his invention has harmed the market price of the cars they’re trying to sell. The same is true of the person who decorates his property in a way his neighbor disapproves of–absent a contractual breach, he hasn’t infringed on anyone’s rights.

The appropriate way to deal with this kind of conflict, imo, is through the preemptive use of restrictive covenants/homeowners associations.