ShareThis Page

Peacefulness from property rights

| Tuesday, Aug. 8, 2017, 9:00 p.m.
This home was under construction last June in Miami Springs, Fla. Property rights, including those that come with owning a home, are key to settling disputes peacefully. (AP Photo/Alan Diaz)
This home was under construction last June in Miami Springs, Fla. Property rights, including those that come with owning a home, are key to settling disputes peacefully. (AP Photo/Alan Diaz)

We humans are social creatures. We come together in large numbers not only face to face — think cities — but in networks of globe-spanning cooperation. Our sociability is responsible for our successes as well as for most of our troubles.

On the success side, consider your clothes. Someone sewed together your shirt, someone else stitched together your underwear, and heaven knows how many other someones worked to grow the cotton for your jeans or skirt, produced the fuel to transport that cotton to a mill, and wrote the insurance contracts that make the entire operation economically feasible.

Every day, each of us uses goods and services produced by the cooperation of legions of people around the world — goods and services that would be impossible to produce without our willingness and ability to join together in contractual and other market arrangements.

But living and working in close proximity, and trading, sometimes create conflict and trouble. On Sunday mornings, churchgoers want quiet to hear their pastor's sermon; diners at a nearby open-air restaurant want to enjoy brunch. If diners can talk as loudly as they please, the noise disrupts the church's quiet. But if the restaurant is prevented from serving Sunday brunch, churchgoers' demand for quiet disrupts diners' wishes.

Who's in the right? In this example, as in most real-world situations, both groups — churchgoers and diners — are engaged in perfectly innocent activities. No one is a bad guy. In a sense, both are in the right.

What to do?

Before answering, it's important to point out what not to do. Don't rush to blame one party for causing all the trouble. It's tempting to blame the restaurant, whose talking and laughing patrons disrupt the church's services. But why not instead blame the church? What if the restaurant began serving Sunday brunch in 1985 and the church was built nearby in 1990? Can we not then say that the church — by putting itself near an existing open-air restaurant — is to blame for the noise that its congregation suffers?

Both activities — brunching and listening to sermons — are peaceful and productive. Here's an idea: Assign a property right to one establishment — say, the church — and let the restaurant owner and the church's pastor bargain.

If the church has the legal right to be free of noise on Sunday mornings, the restaurant owner must either stop serving brunch or pay the church a fee in exchange for permission to keep serving brunch. If the value to the restaurant of continuing Sunday brunch is higher than the cost that churchgoers suffer from the restaurant's noise, the restaurant will agree to pay the church a high enough fee to buy the church's permission to keep serving brunch.

Clear property rights give incentives and opportunities to each of us to peacefully and productively settle disputes that might otherwise erupt into wasteful, or even violent, conflicts.

Donald J. Boudreaux is a professor of economics and Getchell Chair at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. His column appears twice monthly.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.