[bko]

You should check out Coase Theorem:

> A candy maker had had the same property for over 60 years when a doctor moved next door. After eight years passed without incident between them, the the doctor built a consulting room right against the confectioner’s kitchen. The doctor then found that the noise from the confectioner’s equipment interfered with the doctor’s ability to work, and in particular to hear with a stethoscope. The doctor filed suit to force the confectioner to stop using his equipment. The court recognized that the confectioner might suffer some hardship – thus admitting to the reciprocal nature of harm that Coase would later recognize – but it argued that to avoid even greater (unspecified) individual hardship and inhibiting land development for residential use, the confectioner must stop (9.)

> Coase proposed considering how the parties might settle the dispute in a market transaction once the court made its findings; for space reasons I will present a simplified version of Coase’s argument. Though the doctor had won, in a market settlement he would be willing to allow the machinery to continue to operate were the confectioner to pay the doctor a sum that was greater than the doctor’s loss of income from having to either move or install sound abatement material. Conversely, had the confectioner won, in a market settlement he would have been willing to accept payment from the doctor to stop using the noisy machinery if the amount were greater than the confectioner’s costs to move the equipment or install sound abatement material.

https://michaelbrennen.com/2014/04/12/externalities-2-ronald...

[maxerickson]

The machinery in that case was shut down because it wasn't desirable in a residential area!

The confectioner was operating out of a house and the doctor wanted to practice out of a shed in his backyard.

So it would be entirely keeping with that outcome to declare that a park or whatever is intended for peaceful relaxation and ban noisy drones.

Of course you'd have to do it with a straight face knowing that the park already has young people in poorly muffled trucks zooming around all the time.

[bko]

I don't know. The candy maker has been there 60 years and it didn't bother anyone. Does the doctor's right to operate sensitive equipment outweigh the right the candy maker has to use his machines like he's been doing for 60 years? It's not obviously clear to me one way or the other

[js2]

I'm not sure how that applies here, where the conflicting activities are both recreational and not producing of income. Enlighten me?

[bko]

It's a thought experiment. Don't worry about the specifics. It's that most people normally have a visceral reaction one way or another. But in many cases there could be a voluntary solution where all parties are better off.

For instance, consider a noisy neighbor is throwing a party. Suppose I complain but he really values the party and offers me $100 to let him keep the party going another hour. He obviously values it more than $100 so he's better off as am I. Similarly I could pay him to shut off the party, in which case we're also both better off.

I didn't mean it literally like the drone payers should pay to use their drones in the park, although that's not a bad idea. The park goers could enjoy better service and accept some noise, making everyone better off.

I just thought it was funny seeing someone argue about this and it reminded me of Coase and his work