Externality = violation of a property right = coercion = the opposite of freedom = anchor to underdevelopment

I mean, if somebody is smoking in the park and I'm reading there and I don't like the smoke, such as Coase shows, the externality is not merely a matter of the smoker causing a damage to me (Pigou's naïveté). Damage is not a sufficient condition to have a (negative) externality. If and only if a violation of a property right occurs, have we an externality. The other way of seeing an externality, i. e. the need to internalize, consists precisely in the need to put a stop to such a violation of the property right, to such a coercion. Externalities can be defined only in the context of a register of property rights, since they are precisely violations to such a register. On the other hand, even in a completely internalized society where there would be no externalities at all, we could have damages and benefits perceived by some agents by the actions of other agents. The feature of those damages and benefits, however, would be so, in such a system, that our damaged or benefited agents would no have any right whatsoever over putting a stop to the damages or continue enjoying the benefits happening by the actions of other agents, which we re are assuming to be the proprietors of the things causing damages and profits to other agents in our example.

And linking the concept of coercion to the work of Friedrich Hayek in his "The Constitution of Liberty", in which he defines freedom as "that condition of men in which coercion of some by others is reduced as much as is possible in society" (page 11). This is, freedom is the absence of coercion. Coercion is the opposite of freedom. Whereas there is freedom there's no coercion, whereas there's coercion there's not freedom.

This is important, for instance, to understand the key feature by which we can tell a society in which the development advances at a reasonable pace from one in which that reasonable pace is not present. Anyone who has lived in an underdeveloped (*) country bears witness that externalities are a key feature of those countries either because a property register existing it is violated (corruption, blackmail, theft, and a regrettable etcetera) or because there is not such a register in the first place (on which the work by Hernando de Soto is particularly illustrative).

(*) In order to emphasize backwardness, but euphemistically called sometimes "developing" as if full stagnation would be possible and as trying to convey basically the opposite idea of what really happens in countries composed of mostly poor people under world standards, i. e. almost absence of a developing pace.

On the side of the worker

The most effective way to put a (definite) end to institutional unemployment and galloping inflation is to convince workers to accept that nominal wages can diminish at times and that avoiding the proscription of such declines is ultimately beneficial for they themselves. The elaboration and polish of an explanation as clear and simple as possible, prepared not for the academician but for the masses of workers is probably one of the most important tasks of economics.

Just to be clear

One thing is the moral obligation to help the needed. This is on what Christian love for others is based on.

Other thing is the right to demand the help of others. This is on what the State usually is based on.

On the one hand, the Christian teaching compels to help others, but doesn't promote any right to demand the help of others. Quite on the contrary, from its very origin, Christianity instructs to stoically put up with in facing need, without even trying to resort to others help, not to speak of doing it by force.

On the other hand, according to Bastiat, the State is a fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. Government is usually the means through which majorities organize themselves in order to abuse from minorities.

Poverty and the offspring's size

Poverty doesn't arise merely from having babies but specifically from not endowing them with capital.

A not negligible part of capital is what we usually call morals.

Much of morals is learnt within the family.

A big family can perfectly be ideal for learning such values as parsimony, humbleness, collaboration, creativity, and respect to authority.

Poverty has much more to do with not teaching values to children than with the offspring's size itself.

Gini as an envy coefficient

Gini coefficient of incomes can be interpreted as a measure of envy.

If it's high, people don't ask if there are some lazier and others more diligent. It's bad anyway because some earn more than others.

If it've risen, it doesn't matter if that occurred because some went farewell or the arriving of wealthy people. It' bad anyway because some earn more now than others.

In usual interpretations of the Gini coefficient, it doesn't matter poverty, it doesn't matter effort. The one thing it matters is inequality. And the more inequality there is the worse. What can be that but pure and blatant envy?

The Church versus social justice

In a world without the so-called "social justice", there would be many people who couldn't survive without the help of others. At difference of our current interventionist world, values like compassion, generosity, and solidarity would be unavoidable. In such a world, the Church would have the responsibility of uniquely teaching those values and organizing the core of charities, v. g. gratis food, health, clothing, dwelling, and education.

By claiming for more government intervention, clergy begs for being substituted in its major roles in society. By praising "social justice", the Church erodes itself. The day the government have complete dominion in matters of redistribution, the Church can be disposed of.

Blame parents for poverty

Many people feel they are poor. Who’s to blame for this? The ultimate responsible for the existence of an individual is their parents. They are, therefore, responsible for the conditions in which the child is brought into the world. Other people can live with a much higher standard of living but, to be sure, the existence of such a child is not their responsibility.

So, blaming the State, the society or any other allusion to people beyond parents is overruled.

What is referred to by such terms as "unfair world" is usually a euphemism for "irresponsible parents".