From: lydick@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Speaker-to-Minerals)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism
Reply-To: lydick@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 14:32:33 GMT

In article <tljn#bq.aahz@netcom.com>, aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius) writes:
>As I understand it, Libertarians believe that less government is better.
>However, there are some services that need to be provided by a
>centralized resource (aka "government).  {If you feel the need to argue
>this point, we can handle it separately.}

I'd agree with this, with the caveat that there are a LOT of Libertarians out
there with no clear idea of what criteria should be used to determine which
services need to be provided by a central government.  They generally agree on
defense being in that category, but that's just about where the agreement ends.
Far too many Libertarians are woefully ignorant of microeconomics.

>What I have yet to see is a good model for determining when government
>intervention is required, without allowing the feeping creaturism in all
>current forms of government.

Do you know enough about microeconomics to understand the technical definition
of a "public good"?  Essentially, a public good is one that can't be provided
to some people without also providing it to others.  Let's look at a few
examples.
   o	The one most libertarians agree on:  National defense.  Obviously if
	you defend the nation, ALL citizens receive the benefits of that
	defense;
   o	Streetlights.  If you put up streetlights, then everyone near them
	benefits.  It would, I suppose, be possible these days to provide
	people with transponders, and the streetlights light up only when
	someone with a transponder is within range, so you could, in theory,
	provide streetlights only for those who contract for them, but it's
	likely that this scheme would cost more than just providing
	streetlights as we do now;
   o	Fire departments.  If a private fire department contracts to protect
	one building, said protection is, of necessity, going to spill over to
	neighboring buildings.  If the building in question catches fire and
	the fire department puts out the blaze, they reduce the chances that
	neighboring buildings will be affected.  Conversely, if one of the
	neighboring buildings catches fire, then in order to protect the
	building they've contracted to protect, the fire department must put
	out the blaze in the neighboring building.
   o	Immunization programs.  Once you've immunized enough of the population,
	you've reduced the likelihood of epidemics, thus conferring the same
	benefits on those who HAVEN'T been immunized as on those who have.
As should be obvious by now, the common thread in these public goods is that if
you provide them for people who pay for them, you end up, whether or not you
want to, providing them for people who DON'T pay for them.  This gives rise to
the "free rider problem," which is closely related to the Prisoners' Dilemma
problem discussed here recently.  If there's a public good out there (let's use
immunizations as an example), why should I pay for it?  If enough people are
immunized, there's very little chance I'll ever be exposed to the disease, so
why should I pay for a vaccination?  Or, for that matter, even if you offer me
the vaccination free, why should I take the risk that I'll have an adverse
reaction to it?  After all, with or without the vaccination, I'm very unlikely
to come down with the disease.  Of course, if enough people take this attitude,
then there will be a large enough susceptible population to once again support
epidemics.  In a free market, how can you compel me to take the vaccine?  You
can't.  So, in a free market, we've got one of two results:
	1)  Enough people pay for the vaccine, subsidizing the rest of the
	    population, that it's effective in preventing epidemics; or
	2)  Not enough people pay for the vaccine and we still have epidemics,
	    EVEN IF EVERYBODY WOULD BE MADE BETTER OFF WERE THE VACCINE TO BE
	    USED.
Now, if we're lucky enough to have situation 1, then at least we get an
efficient allocation of resources.  The equity of the resulting distribution
is, of course, arguable, but the allocation is efficient.

In case 2, on the other hand, we don't even get an efficient allocation of
resources.  That's where we need government.

>Let's take your statement about taxes and vitamins as an example:

>Vitamin A can be toxic in large doses, but the company selling vitamins
>fails to disclose this information to you.  How to redress the problem?

Caveat emptor.

>If you have a government-run court system, then that requires taxes if
>you select "fair and equitable access to courts" as a criterion.

Nonsense.  Just require that whomever loses a case pay the court costs.

>If you attempt to regulate the vitamin industry, that too requires taxes.

Why should you attempt to regulate it?
Newsgroups: alt.callahans