Coasian ethics have come to roost in Ohio, or roast as the case may be (roasted soybeans in this instance).
The Columbus Dispatch reported that an Ohio Court of Claims judge has sided with the state department of transportation in a suit brought forth by a farmer who claimed that his soybean crop was stunted by high-mast lighting along a state highway.
While everyone agrees that the farmer suffered a loss, the judge sided with the state agency, concluding that “while (the farmer) may have suffered more than others because of the lighting, his situation was not unique.”
The judge reached his decision based on arguments from the state agency that ruling in the farmer’s favor would “invite millions of dollars in legal claims from others who suffer from the effects of living near highways.” And, the state certainly can’t have that.
So, assigned property rights leave the courtroom when the state is involved. And, the greater the potential loss to the state, the less likely that courts will hold the state liable. Sound pretty utilitarian since the state — by standard definition — produces societal benefits far exceeding those produced by acting individuals — a farmer in this instance.
This case should make for a great addition to debates over real-world applications of Rothbardian/Hoppean property rights and the Coase Theorem.
{ 17 comments }
Why is it that people still think the State protects their property rights?
When you pay property taxes the state owns your land therefor “emminent domain” can go foreward without hindrence for the “greater good.” Ipso faco no one owns their land,they are just renters with the ability to sell.
Time out.
If you believe this is an injustice against the *farmer*, wouldn’t this be an argument *against* Rothbardian property theory? After all, since when does my *light* getting on your property count as aggression? Did the farmer somehow “homestead” a right to have a certain grade of light be the only light bathing his property? And wouldn’t that, heaven forbid, give him part-ownership of all lights (i.e. other people’s property!!!!!) in the area? (Hm, sounds like a no-no from Stephan_Kinsella’s POV when he talks about IP…)
Ditto for the remark about how the state would have to compensate people for the spillover effects of highways. Do you really think it’s an injustice that the indirect effects of a highway being built are a property rights violation?
I the state is using anything *but* utilitarian reasoning here: no physical transgression, no violation of property rights, no compensation due. Since when do the desires of a farmer dictate when his rights were violated? (That opens the door to IP.)
Explanation requested.
Person, I have to disagree with you. It’s true that the farmer does not have the right to a certain grade of light, because nature itself changes how much light the farmer’s crops receive (e.g. day vs night, a cloudy day vs a clear one, etc.). But, the farmer does have the right to be free from significant, man-made light changes.
Now, how much light does it take to constitute aggression? That’s debatable. But, it sounds like the court ruled that the farmer was definitately harmed, so that’s not really the issue. The issue is that the court said, “Hey, the farmer isn’t the only one suffering, so he has no claim here.”
It’s not like the court is saying to the farmer, “Hey, get over it, cry baby, it’s just a little light.” No, the court is saying that a lot of million-dollar lawsuits could follow if it ruled in the farmer’s favor. Whether or not those lawsuits are legit, the court doesn’t say, because that’s not the point. The point is that the farmer is trying to rock the State’s boat, and we can’t have that.
I see what you’re saying, Blah, and that’s a good point, but the post seemed to be saying something more, is all.
Person,
You’re drawing the wrong conclusions from this. The farmer does not have partial ownership of the lights (wth?) but does have the right to complain if he was there first and the lights constitute real harm to his property. It is no different than if the state had erected high-powered laser turrets that occasionally burn his crops. I can see you are trying to tie this in with your idea of “value scarcity”, but such a connection is not necessary or desired.
Scott_D: It’s been my experience that intellectual rigor here is, in general, not necessary or desired.
You still haven’t resolved the contradiction. If the farmer hadn’t used the land for growing crops, but rather for football or horseriding, the different light wouldn’t matter to his use. Why, then, is the light agressing now? You have to indirectly use a sort of appeal to “homesteading the grade of light that bathes this plot” to get that light to be agression, because it’s otherwise harmless.
And who says it was even a harm? What if Farmer B likes his soybean crop that way? Are you saying, then, that the individual farmer’s *judgment* of the value *to him* resulting from the light somehow determines if the act is aggression? (Be careful!)
But (and first) The Farmer WAS using the land to Farm.
Imagine this scenario: right before you get chance to build your home, a neighboring factory starts polluting the air on your property with some intolerable odors. According to Rothbard – you have no legal claim against them. They did not violate your current use of land, since you don’t live on it and they started their activity first.
If your neighbor builds an underground tunnel under your property before you get chance to construct your home, you are simply prevented from any construction, because of the danger of sinkholes.
According to Rothbard, if a railroad creates sparks that create fire and prevent you from using your land for wheat production – you have no way of asking them to find a solution to prevent those fires – or tell them to purchase that piece of your land and to burn it all they want.
===
Ownership rights are meaningless, if they are not substantive. We can imagine ways in which someone can hurt you with certain kinds of gamma radiation, noise, etc. Or just for theoretical sake, imagine if I was able to kill you by hypothetically sucking the air from your apartment, without ever physically invading you or your property.
As Mises correctly noticed, “ownership means full control of the services that can be derived from a good.” No other definition of ownership would make any sense (try phrasing an alternative). If someone prevents us from exclusively controling the normal uses of our property, there must be a violation of ownership rights.
“When you pay property taxes the state owns your land therefor “emminent domain” can go foreward without hindrence for the “greater good.” Ipso faco no one owns their land,they are just renters with the ability to sell.”
I see – so when a thief steals your property, do they now rightfully own it?
Bah, I don’t think Randall was being literal with that comment. My bad if so.
First use is the answer. If the lights were installed before the farmer began to use the land for soybeans, he would have no claim. The farmer has to prove that the lights have in fact stunted his crops.
It is not specific uses and desires that are important, but the fact that the government has directly and negatively impacted the state of his property. Actions that are aggression in one circumstance (shining light on another’s property) would not be considered agression in another. This is the way that we resolve any type of nuisance effect, including noise and pollution.
Scott_D: What was the negative impact to his property? After all, it’s possible in theory that the light could have enhanced the market value of the crops. So it would seem that the light is this case is unique in that it aggressed because it reduced the market value of the crops. But once you permit “reducing the value of crops” as constituting aggression, you have to permit mere market competition as aggression too.
person:
Not at all. The light physically changed the crops. The only difference between that and burning them to the ground is the degree of the change. It hardly equates to, say, introducing a rival product that is superior to his soybean crop.
Scott_D: Why must an act BOTH decrease the market value AND cause a physical change for it to be aggression? Why isn’t the latter sufficient?
This competition you speak of is like saying a competing farmer who hires a neighbor to install lights to harm this farmers crop is competition. Or the mafia hiring a hitman to kill all it’s competitors. There are different types of “competition”, some right, some wrong.
Joseph_Huang: I wasn’t saying that installing harmful lights is “competition”. I was saying that the *principle* Scott_D used to justify the farmer’s claim, would also justify a claim against all market competitors.
Comments on this entry are closed.