Question

Are there limits to Coase’s joint-cost theory of harm? Is it appropriate to say that laws prohibiting murder “harm” those who would like to commit murders? Can you imagine a circumstance in which the social costs of prohibiting murder might exceed the social costs of not prohibiting murder?

Answer 1

Insufficient definitions of vital terms, methodology adopted and the assumption that individual productive capabilities as well as amenabilities remain unaffected due to any transition (one mode to another) are the limits to Coase’s joint-cost theory of harm.

                                  It is not appropriate in any way to say that laws prohibiting murder “harm” those who would like to commit murders because to keep a person away from doing a murder, which is the most vicious and thus prohibiting someone from doing it can’t be in any sense termed as harm, also it has no economic benefit.

                                                                              The social costs of prohibiting murder can never exceed the social costs of not prohibiting murder except in case of insane persons, as the regulations will never deter them from doing the murder and the resources employed (regulations etc) will always be a waste.