Ingrid Snook, Chaper 3, Question 3

In this chapter, the author explains externalities and the positives and negatives of them. He proposes the solution of taxing negative externalities, which does kind of seem like a good idea. But he brings up the idea that the parties in an externality can come to a private agreement, as reference to Ronald Coase's study. The author puts Coase's explanation in a simple and relatable way by talking about his neighbor playing loud bongos. Bringing up difference scenarios such as paying his neighbor to be quiet seem like they'd be successful if you really wanted silence. But what if the neighbor wanted to pay to play his bongos, so he was essentially paying to be loud? It seems like this method could be successful, but knowing human nature it would seem almost impossible that people could come to an agreement. But I also think about what if playing bongos was Stuart's passion? How do you put a price on being allowed to play them? This situation may work for a few, but it looks like one private party might come out with more benefits then the other.