From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Public Goods that libertarians acknowledge.
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:56:29 GMT

In article <1dlv6fINNc3c@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
}
}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.

Not quite.  These things must be goods, not evils.  We're talking about
things which benefit everyone, not things which benefit some and not others,
and not things which are to the detriment of anyone.

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

Yes, it's whether or not the programs undertaken by the government actually
constitute net public goods that is mainly in dispute nowadays.

}>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.

You're assuming public goods that last a long time, in which case you'd have
us.  But what actual cases are there?

}>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.

You see, there are serious constraints upon them.  Not just any benefit
from the State counts.  First, it must benefit everyone equally, or else it's
a private good.  So, taking $10 from everyone and giving equal shares of it
to a part of the public doesn't count.  There go transfer payments like our
"welfare" programs.  Second, it must outweigh the loss incurred.  So, if the
State takes $10 from everyone and buys them a $5 good each, it doesn't count.
This rules out regulations which cost more to comply with than the harms they
prevent, for example.

}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

Poul Anderson's a libertarian, you know.  I just asked David Friedman about
this, and he pointed out something I already knew, but needed to be reminded
of: there are lots of goods that are part private, part public.  It's a
continuum.  If I paint my house a nice color, it's good not only to my
private interest, but also to the public that admires it.  Same goes for
dressing well, being beautiful or handsome...

David's point is that we have a fairly good way of producing these goods:
privately.  When we try to do it publicly, we invariably fail.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian