From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Public Goods that libertarians acknowledge.
Date: 9 Nov 1992 15:13:19 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1992Nov8.111634.22369@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1de4ujINN6st@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>}Would you mind listing or categorizing the public goods that you accept and
>}that David Friedman accepts in "The Machinery of Freedom"?
>
>The only two I know of are national defense and clean sewers...
>
>However, the criteria for public goods are nonexcludability, meaning that
>none can be excluded from receiving the benefits, and the "free-rider"
>principle, that some can receive the benefits without having to pay their
>"fair" share.
>
>My understanding is that it's the first criterion that's most difficult to
>satisfy...

I can believe that the first criterion is hard to satisfy, because of the
following two arguments.

First, national defense fails on two counts.  Those opposing the current
government might welcome conquest (a stituation not uncommon among minority
groups in Europe.)  And a fair number would not be affected by a change of
government, as is seen in the case of residents of Panama residing outside
of the capital city.  Neither of these groups perceives a benefit.

Nonexcludability is a problem for the STATE: it has hard (but not impossible)
for the state to exclude those who don't wish to pay for a "benefit".
It is not a problem for individuals who ought to know whether or not they
wish to receive a benefit from that state.

Second, by the same criteria that allow these two, the barn door is left
open for a whole, large range of public goods.  Any government action that
affects a market price seems to satisfy nonexcludability.  Any restrictions
on import (from quarantines to prohibition to tarifs for control of market
price) also seem to satisfy nonexcludability.  Essentially, any government
practice which must be practically based on enforcement over a territory
seems to satisfy nonexcludability.

>... but that the second is a bit tricky, too.  There are some cases
>where most are willing to put up with some free riders, others where a part
>of their property is taken, the benefit being just compensation for the loss.
>I'd say that takings should always be the last resort.

The free rider part seems well resolved in our current system: I can understand
why it might be a problem in a libertarian system.

>There are also legal instruments for getting around the free rider problem:
>have a contract that for everyone to pay a given amount for a public good that
>only takes effect if all sign it.  This removes the possibility that anyone
>who doesn't will receive the benefit anyways.

Two major problems with this strategy.  You are creating a situation where the
last holdout has the most power to control the actions of the group.  This
creates a strong incentive to be the last holdout.  In practice, this has
only worked in small, closed societies (such as Quakers) where the pressure
for conformity of opinion is extremely high.  I don't see that working with
libertarians.  :-)  The other problem is that the list of recipients of
this public good cannot be static.  Immigrants, emmigrants, births, deaths,
etc. will have to be dealt with.  Will you refund money to emmigrants?
Will you require immigrants to pay?  Will you require children to pay or
emmigrate when they reach independant status?  It strikes me that we already
have a system that takes care of these problems.

>Our biggest problem at present is the innumerable private goods financed at
>public expense.  I'll ask David if he knows of any other public goods.  It's
>possible that some environmental problems, specifically ones relating to
>global climate change, may qualify, if the problems exist.

I don't see yet how Friedman's ideas of public goods conform to libertarian
ideals.  I too feel that public goods are necessary: but I think that
they cannot be encompassed by libertarian principles.  I won't pretend to
know all the diversity of libertarian ideas on the subject: I'd welcome
any one to make this clear to me.

Mike Huben

"I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked
at it the right way, did not become still more complicated."  Poul Anderson
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1607 alt.politics.marrou:2082