From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Public Goods that libertarians acknowledge.
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 14:31:14 GMT

In article <1e0h2jINNijg@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
}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.

There's a reason they're called public GOODS, and not evils.  We're talking
about products or services that are valuable, not just anything that the
government decides it wants to tax us all to do to us.  I'm sorry to
disappoint you, but I thought I'd addressed the points necessary.  Don't
mail the posting to me without a clear heading letting me know what it is,
as I get a lot of mail, and need to be able to tell if it's important or not.

}>}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.

That isn't my intent.  You seem to be wanting to make more out of the theory
than there really is.  Goods are public when they have nonexcludability and
(as I recall) potential recipients that may not pay for them.

}>}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.

Given that we have few protesting publicly-financed sewers, I'd say that this
is fairly strong evidence that many people are willing to let there be
some free riders such as children and immigrants.  Impact fees are already
charged to some immigrants in some municipalities, however, and this could
remain the same for proprietary communities.

Military defense isn't usually the sort of thing that is necessary over time.
That's one of the reasons we aren't supposed to have standing armies.  If
someone fires a nuclear warhead at us, stopping it from detonating is a
public good for us, but not for very long.

However, roads, bridges, mass transportation, etc., are indeed expected to
last a long time, but are private goods, not public ones, in that they don't
benefit everyone equally.  Some public health policies would qualify, as
well as quarantines.

}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.

If defense or sewage systems prevent everyone from being killed, that's
equal.  Same for catastrophes such as large meteors, quarantine for diseases
that there aren't immunizations for (although I doubt we're going to
quarantine anyone for having a common cold), and probably more examples I
can't think of.  Death prevention doesn't have to be the benefit, either.
it could be that raising (or lowering) the average temperature of the planet
would benefit all its human inhabitants in either higher crop yield or
aversion of planetary desertification.

The standards are tough, but not impossible.  I didn't make 'em up, nor did
Friedman.  They're fairly standard in economics.  What's controversial are
the particular cases.  They used to argue that lighthouses were public goods,
until Coase refuted that on historical grounds.

}>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?

They were serious.  I gave examples above that are even greater in scope and
potential impact.

As for how they should be paid for, why, voluntarily, of course :-).

}>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.

Goods are products or services, whether public or private.  A public good is a
special kind of good.

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

The problem is that redistribution tends to create disincentives to production,
which leaves socialists with nothing left to distribute.


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