Microsoft Hatred FAQ 5163

...

Incidentally, the perfectly good rationale for this universal existence of limitations to "doing whatever you want with your property" is known in economics as *externalities*. Transactions that appear to involve just one or two parties, and be entirely voluntary between them, may in fact produce all sort of beneficial or detrimental effects on further parties who have not necessarily agreed to that. For example, I may "own" a certain lot of land, but if on that lot I place a siren blaring and a huge flashing red sign, the energy of the sound waves and light will inevitably also affect other nearby places, which I do not "own" (either they're commons, or owned by somebody else), imposing an externality on owners and-or users of those nearby places.

Of course, while some externalities are entirely obvious (it's hard to argue against such sirens and flashing lights being otherwise), many others are subtler and more debatable, so one reasonable society might acknowledge a certain clbutt of externality and try to regulate it while another might prefer not to do so. But the general concept of society as a whole placing limitations on private owners' uses of the property, based on externalities certain uses might impose on unwilling parties, is as solid as a rock, both practically and theoretically -- however much anarchists or extreme libertarians might wish otherwise.

Alex