My "great idea" in teaching (partially borrowed from the libertarians, ironically enough): I like to talk about negative externalities in terms of violation of one's property rights (partly as a prelude to a discussion about property rights as inherently ambiguous). Along these lines, I talk about how the proverbial smoke from the proverbial factory _trespasses on peoples' lungs_. Further, I talk about such externalities _violate one's (negative) freedom_. Students these days are highly impressed by "freedom" arguments. One of my major points is that it's not just the government (the snake in the mainstreaam neoclassical's Garden of Eden) that violates individual freedom. It's also those who destroy the quality of the air that we breathe, etc. The advantage of the government is that at least we have some (nominal) control over its violations of our freedom; in theory it violates our freedom because we want it to (to deal with free-rider problems). I also talk about how (in theory) the government can _increase_ our (positive) freedoms, i.e., by providing us with parks, etc. (An increase "freedom" in general refers to increases in the scope of choice.) Obviously, freedom is not my only concern; however, I do emphasize it (along with efficiency, equity, and democracy), unlike many leftists. I think that the emphasis on freedom was one of the major contributions of the New Left. However, following the Old Left, I try to avoid a moralistic (i.e., objectively infeasible) emphasis on freedom. The immediate impact of pollution is not my only concern. I also stress the impact on future generations -- and on nature itself. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] <74267,[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
