How much does the harm caused by the neighbor's loud music weigh, as a "negative externality" due to the transmission of sound waves through the public air? How much does the enjoyment of that music weigh? How can one rationalize (objectively weigh) the benefits and harms perceived by both sides?
How does a "philosopher king" want to measure their benefits and harms and aggregate it into a "group rationality", to a "net benefit/loss" of an imagined "group" of both players? They are no collective nor a group, they are different parties with conflicting and incommensurable interests.
It's essentially a power process. How far am I willing to go to get my neighbor to lower his volume? How far is he willing to go to sustain the volume? How far do I think he will go and how far does he think I would go. To what extent do I believe my counterpart's threats or promises (as a form of cost communication)? This is the ground on which politics moves as well. It's a game about tipping points of decisions, trying to anticipate them and also moving them. There is no "best" common solution and no "wrong" common solution. The solution found is result of our (different levels of) chutzpah, courage, willingness to take a risk, to invest in an effort. How far one goes demonstrates how dear something is to him, its actual value to him. That's the only measure that counts. One can overrule such solution, but only with an effort and interest in another solution .
How much does the harm caused by the neighbor's loud music weigh, as a "negative externality" due to the transmission of sound waves through the public air? How much does the enjoyment of that music weigh? How can one rationalize (objectively weigh) the benefits and harms perceived by both sides?
How does a "philosopher king" want to measure their benefits and harms and aggregate it into a "group rationality", to a "net benefit/loss" of an imagined "group" of both players? They are no collective nor a group, they are different parties with conflicting and incommensurable interests.
It's essentially a power process. How far am I willing to go to get my neighbor to lower his volume? How far is he willing to go to sustain the volume? How far do I think he will go and how far does he think I would go. To what extent do I believe my counterpart's threats or promises (as a form of cost communication)? This is the ground on which politics moves as well. It's a game about tipping points of decisions, trying to anticipate them and also moving them. There is no "best" common solution and no "wrong" common solution. The solution found is result of our (different levels of) chutzpah, courage, willingness to take a risk, to invest in an effort. How far one goes demonstrates how dear something is to him, its actual value to him. That's the only measure that counts. One can overrule such solution, but only with an effort and interest in another solution .