The most dangerous places to be are where reasonable people can disagree. Confined livestock production sits in such a place. Despite proclamations about family farms, industrialized agriculture, health risks, animal welfare and water quality, the sustaining issue of this debate is that folks think confinement facilities stink. Addressing this leads to disagreements over rights to “property” that no one holds title to — the air we breathe.

Who owns that air? Who is responsible for its quality? Who owned it before the wind blew it past a chemical factory, petroleum refinery, livestock farm, flower garden or fresh-mown field of hay? Should responsibility for the quality of the air (both good and bad) result in direct compensation?

Reasonable people disagree. Most of us respond differently depending upon whether our air is “damaged” (we deserve compensation) or “value-added” (we owe for pleasant fragrances). If we are inconsistent with ourselves on these basic issues, how will we address stickier questions of order (should compensation go to the parties who held the air before or after it was damaged or improved?) and windfall (who gets title to the air when property rights are imposed on what was previously free?)?

We recognize ownership of the air as it suits us. If it is “damaged,” someone is responsible. The perpetrator should compensate us or be regulated so this does not happen again. If the air is “value-added,” it is a public resource. We don’t compensate those responsible, because they did nothing. The wind blew past their flower garden and delivered the air to us.

Is the air ours only when we are on our own property? Movement complicates things. When the air moves, ownership is complex enough. If we move, too, it gets crazy. Suppose we take a weekend drive through the countryside, enjoying (for free) the visual glory and fresh air of the season? Does ownership of the air change hands wherever we pass? If it does, immobile facilities (farm or otherwise) trespass upon our air as we travel. If it does not, we are “air trespassing.”

We migrate, drive and commute. We move to and through rural areas to enjoy the calm, beauty and fresh air. When this works, we never consider directly compensating those who maintain that environment. The air is free. When it doesn’t work, we want the responsible party to pay. The air is ours. It changes hands when we pass by.

Last week’s essay [“Is this heaven? Only if you’re a pig”] implicitly asserts that the air changes hands. The author was assaulted by a thief that stole her breath as she moved though the countryside. The thief was described as a big industrialized hog factory — not a farm family. Allusions to animal mistreatment and the destruction of the family farm seal the indictment. This is typical of conversations with people favoring local control, as is the desire to stop and roll back, if possible, the development of confined production.

These attitudes will never solve the problem. Sustainable solutions must appear fair and workable to everyone involved. Producers, no matter how well-meaning, have no incentive to make concessions when nothing short of elimination will satisfy the opposition. Property rights that work assign privileges and responsibilities on both sides. The current discussion divides privileges and responsibilities and assigns them to different parties.

Though it is difficult, reasonable people who agree to disagree can fashion fair and workable solutions to complex problems. Without reason and fairness, however, nothing of consequence is ever really solved. Regardless which side of this issue we take, we should all take a hard look at the fairness and reason of our positions.

Mark Imerman is a staff economist in the department of economics at Iowa State University.