I mentioned in my previous post that harms might be a “reciprocal” problem, a simple but counter-intuitive idea with revolutionary implications that can be traced back to the work of the late great Anglo-American economist Ronald Coase, and I also referred to Coase’s original “cattle trespass” exemplar or paradigm case to illustrate this reciprocal conception of harms. In fact, much of my scholarly work has been devoted to Coase’s reciprocal harm idea; by way of illustration, below are some links (in reverse chronological order) to my previous work on this topic:

1. The reciprocal nature of noise disputes: “Noise versus quiet” (2024).
2. The reciprocal nature of Amerigo Bonasera’s plea for justice in the original Godfather movie: “Coase and the Corleones” (2022).
3. The reciprocal nature of accidents at the Tour de France: “Ronald Coase and the Tour de France” (2021).
4. Nozick on reciprocal risks: “Nozick on reciprocal risks” (2021).
5. The reciprocal nature of pandemic risks: “Lockdowns as takings” (2020).
6. The reciprocal nature of copyright disputes: “Of Coase and copyrights: the law and economics of literary fan art” (2019).
7. The reciprocal nature of disputes over reclining airline seats: “The airplane seat dilemma” (2014).
8. The reciprocal nature of economic externalities: “Modelling the Coase Theorem” (2012).
9. The reciprocal nature of “the battle of the replicants” in the original Blade Runner movie: “Clones and the Coase Theorem” (2011).
10. The reciprocal nature of many domestic disputes: “Domestic violence, strategic behavior, and ideological rent-seeking” (2006).

In my next post, I will explore what effects Coase’s reciprocal conception of harms might have on our moral intuitions about right and wrong.