tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post7465735569784314012..comments2023-11-02T06:04:23.552-04:00Comments on Back to the Drawing Board: Asymmetry Between Positive and Negative ExternalitiesDannyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14933199894935324897noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-1186923740069180032008-03-13T17:50:00.000-04:002008-03-13T17:50:00.000-04:00The point that's confusing me is that you sound li...The point that's confusing me is that you sound like you're saying that the court's reason for awarding you damages would be that you decided that my actions had a negative effect on you. It seems to me that the reason that the court would decide to award you damages would not be <I>because</I> you felt worse off as a result of my actions, but rather because you had a <I>right</I> not to be made worse off <I>in some way</I>, and I infringed on that right. By doing so, I acquired an obligation to compensate you. In other words, it seems to me that the question the court would be answering is not whether your hurt feelings had been hurt, but rather whether your rights had been infringed upon. <BR/><BR/>But your paint example brings up a good point in that not <I>all</I> negative externalities generate an obligation to compensate. It seems like the focus is not in fact on making people worse off, but rather on infringing upon their rights. I'll have to think about this some more, but it seems like a promising idea.Danny Shaharhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16781136797017833336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-11755257321524985912008-03-13T17:20:00.000-04:002008-03-13T17:20:00.000-04:00I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you have no o...I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you have no obligation <I>before</I> we settle our dispute. I'm not talking about the means of settling (neither good nor bad). And mutual agreements, mediators and courts are just means to end our dispute.<BR/><BR/>Let me try breaking it down (on negative effects):<BR/>1. you take actions<BR/>2. <I>I</I> decide for myself if your actions have an effect on me (nobody else can).<BR/>3. <I>I</I> decide for myself if this effect (on me) is a negative one (nobody else can).<BR/>4. Because of previous (2 and 3) decisions, I decide to confront you (nobody else can).<BR/>5. You decide that you don't believe me or think I'm overreacting or you are certain your actions have no effect on anybody (let alone negative one).<BR/>6. Now we have a dispute.<BR/><BR/>To this point, you are <I>not</I> obligated to compensate me. We are just a couple of people in dispute over the color of my house.<BR/><BR/>7. Now we settle it. And by settling it (agreement, courts...), the losing party agrees or is forced into by courts, to take on an obligation to compensate the winning party.<BR/><BR/>The force involved in settling (courts) does not change the fact that the obligation arises <I>only</I> after/with the settlement of dispute.<BR/><BR/>To put it bluntly; you cannot be obligated before we settle, because only I can characterize the effects of your actions on me either as negative or as positive ones.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-34877584668764641222008-03-13T11:40:00.000-04:002008-03-13T11:40:00.000-04:00Well hold on, are you saying that the only reason ...Well hold on, are you saying that the only reason I have to compensate you when you take me to court is that the court says so, and I am obligated to do what the court says? I would think it better to say that I was obliged all along, and the court simply recognized, or upheld that obligation.Danny Shaharhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16781136797017833336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2473166537823294555.post-53612710669066751142008-03-13T05:10:00.000-04:002008-03-13T05:10:00.000-04:00Just a few thoughts.I'd like to point out that if ...Just a few thoughts.<BR/><BR/>I'd like to point out that if you unilaterally do something that has an effect on me, you do not get the right to compensation, neither you take on an obligation to compensate me.<BR/><BR/>If I decide that effects of your actions on me are negative enough to warrant complaint and I do complain against your actions (confront you or take you to court) and I am successfull (you or the judge agree with my view), only then are you obligated to compensate me. After all, Mary, the other neighbour might even enjoy the new color of her house :-)<BR/><BR/>The same holds true for positive effect. If I decide the effects are positive enough to warrant payment to you, then I will track you down and pay you (maybe Mary <I>really</I> enjoys the new color).<BR/><BR/>There of course is an asymmetry. Not because of the incomplete or wrong rules, but because of human nature - we tend to value less the things that are free and value more the things that we call our own.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com