[genidoi]

I don't see how there are 'sides' to this. Blasting a BT speaker with your music, which the majority of people aren't likely to enjoy because of the huge variety of peoples taste in music, is a uniquely selfish thing to do.

I don't know about you, but blasting my Spotify likes on a BT speaker in a crowded, and particularly an enclosed environment, would not be an enjoyable experience. I can imagine it's only enjoyable if one is sufficiently self absorbed enough to think that their music is universally enjoyed by everyone.

[throitallaway]

Go to any nature area with hiking trails near decent population centers and you're likely to encounter this. If you want to "enjoy" music while in nature, wear headphones... I'd rather hear birds, the wind hitting leaves, approaching wildlife, etc. I don't want to hear your shitty music from 40 feet away.

[jyrkesh]

Yeah, because you defined a line where the vast majority of people would agree.

But you can slide the line over to a point where people would be more split on the issue. E.g. say you're alone on a public beach playing your music, and one other person walks up to also enjoy the beach and who doesn't want to hear your music. Should you turn off the music? Is there a db level that's acceptable? Should the other person be required to find a quieter spot further down the coast? Or should you have to relocate to an empty spot?

[ericd]

Use headphones.

[ryan_j_naughton]

What about when it is a small group playing very low music such that it is quickly drowned out by the sound of the waves and the birds after 10 feet of distance. Headphones are actually impede their enjoyment of the situation there because (a) they cannot easily talk to one another with headphones in (b) they cannot enjoy the mixing sounds of nature and music. In many cases, folk music or classical music at low volume mixed with nature can be very enjoyable for people.

The problem here is you see no value to their enjoyment of these things and thus weight their enjoyment of such experience at zero while their interruption of your situation as an invasion. But if you force them to stop listening to music, you too are disrupting or invading their lives. That's the two-sided nature of any negative externality and attempts to internalize it. We all need to view this from the perspective of social costs and social benefits (i.e. a utilitarian perspective across all people's happiness). The result is almost always a compromise between the two extremes.

[acheron]

Correct. I also see no value to someone’s enjoyment of punching others in the face. I am perfectly fine disrupting and invading their lives to force them to stop punching others in the face.

[ryan_j_naughton]

I was drafting an extensive response to this, but I am on a time crunch with my work schedule. If you are honestly interested in understand optimal solutions to externalities and handling the problem of social costs, I would recommend checking out Ronald Coase's paper "The Problem of Social Cost" for which he won the Nobel prize.[1]

I will hopefully have time this weekend to draft my response.

The TLDR is that, their "right to noise" impedes upon your "right to silence" but also your "right to silence" impedes upon their "right to noise". Giving either side the complete right and banning the other side is effectively having one force its way upon the other. Forcing silence is by definition an externality as well -- it just happens to be the side you value. But there are better middle ground solutions where we balance the benefits of each side.

A very clean example of this is noise pollution next to an airport. If the houses next to the airport had a complete right to silence then we couldn't have airplanes. But if the airplanes had a complete right to noise, then quality of life around the airport would diminish way too much. Instead, the socially optimal solution lies in the middle. It is why zero pollution is actually NOT socially optimal as the costs of zero pollution are too high.

For each additional decibel produced, the marginal social costs increase at a faster rate. Thus, people whispering at the beach or playing very low music such that it is quickly drowned out by the sound of the waves and the birds after 5 feet of distance is fine.

A blanket ban on all music on the beach doesn't actually enable us to find the socially optimal levels in the same way as a blanket allowance of music on the beach. In the airport example, a blanket ban or allowance would prevent innovations in things like sound protective walls to internalize some (though never all) of the externality.

[1] https://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/file/coase-problem.pdf