From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Public Goods that libertarians acknowledge.
Date: 13 Nov 1992 15:19:47 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1992Nov11.135629.9225@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>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.

Sorry, but you are ADDING a criterion (good versus evil, a pathetically
subjective judgement) rather than addressing the rather objective criterion
of nonexcludability which I am questioning.  I'm disappointed that you skipped
so many of my posting's points.  I'd like to see you address those points in
terms of the two public goods Friedman acknowledges, defense and sewers.
If you need me to mail you the original posting, just ask.

>}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.

I'm sorry, but here you are using the same strategem creationists do.
They won't defend their "theory", but are happy to refocus on the attack
of evolution.  I'd like to know how libertarians would deal with the
free rider problem for public goods that they acknowledge.  We know what
libertarians complain about: I want to know about the libertarian alternative.

>}>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?

Why don't you address the two Friedman acknowledges, sewers and defense.
Both ought to last a long time.  Most public works, such as roads, bridges,
dams, water systems, mass transportation, etc. as well as assorted continuing
programs such as public health, quarantines, etc. are expected to last a long
time.

>}>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.

How does defense or sewage systems benefit everyone equally?  Is there
ANYTHING which could benefit everyone equally?  Let alone be a net benefit
for everyone?  You still haven't made it clear how Friedman's ideas of public
goods conform to libertarian ideals.  All you seem to be doing is describing
impossible standards that Friedman's public goods can't meet either.

>}"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.

That's nice.  Every now and then I like something a libertarian says.  :-)

>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...

Why don't you choose a more serious example, and then address how part
private/part public goods ought to be paid for then?

>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.

I'm afraid your first sentence is pretty ambiguous: "goods" could mean public
goods or products.  The second sentence is mere rhetoric.

However, guessing at your meaning, I'd argue capitalism is good for production,
socialism is good for distribution.

Mike Huben

"To save the world requires faith and courage: faith in reason, and courage
to proclaim what reason shows to be true."
	Bertrand Russell in "The Prospects of Industrial Civilization".





























Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:1639 talk.politics.misc:58295 sci.psychology:4294