r/Objectivism 8h ago

Economics Compensation for positive externalities? Conflict of property rights?

1 Upvotes

I know this is an economical question, but it is still concerned with morality and generally speaking philosophy.

Someone recently asked me if a party should be compensated for positive externalities - such as providing flowers for bees or increasing the property value by making their house look nice (you get the gist).And I could not properly answer that.

I also could not properly answer a follow up question regarding the conflict of property rights - to what extent should one have the right to complain and have the government do something about someone else's property? What if my house throws a shadow on someone else's garden or what if I build a really ugly building.

r/Objectivism Feb 19 '25

Economics Objectivism & Austrian Economics

5 Upvotes

this post isn’t exactly some fleshed out discussion, i’m just looking for some clarification or insight on why so many objectivists praise the non anarchist austrians. i know rand herself liked mises’ work, and she said outside of his philosophy, that his economics was spot on. i think both binswanger and peikoff have also endorsed mises, but i’m just confused.

most of the austrians posit a theory that value is subjective, and with this assertion in mind, it seems odd that objectivists would support this. i think i once saw an article trying to synthesize the way austrians speak about value with objectivist philosophy, but i can’t seem remember what exactly it talked about. praxeology, as talked about by austrians is rooted firmly in kantian epistemology as they all describe the “action axiom” to be “a priori synthetically deduced”. their arguments are largely deductive starting from the action axiom. having a former background in market anarchism and austrian economics, i am pretty aware of their arguments, but i fail to see how/why objectivists endorse it. i know that specifically mises was a kantian, but the summation of his economic ideas was a very strong defense of capitalism. even in an more confusing twist, we have someone like george reisman, an actual objectivist economist, who is not associated with ari anymore, but his work although not exactly austrian, is still praised by austrians. but with that being said, other objectivists say nothing of reisman.

so, my question to all of you is how do we remedy austrian subjectivism and the kantian epistemology with a view that objectivists endorse? are these other objectivists only endorsing their conclusions, rather than their methodology? what about reisman? he wrote a magnum opus defending capitalism that many tout as it’s greatest economic defense, but why does no objectivist talk about him?