I've long suspected that there is a problem with the evolution of street cleaning in a free market. Imagine a shopping district which tends to become cluttered with rubbish, making the area less attractive to shoppers. Suppose that if all the shop keepers banded together and contributed to hiring street cleaning services for the area then there would be a net benefit in terms of extra visitors that would lead to extra profits that are greater than the cost of the cleaners by some small margin. Now the problem is that if one of the shop-keepers does not want to join the scheme then what can be done? The other shop keepers can not force him to join in. Now the shop keeper that won't pay causes all sorts of problems: 1. it means that the others will have to pay more and the cost benefit equation may no longer work. 2. Other shop keepers may get angry and say "well if he's not paying then why should I". The system may all too easily fail or not get off the ground in the first place.
I've just read "Economics in one lesson" by Henry Haslitt and noted that on page 69, "street cleaners" is included in a list of "public officeholders whose services are really needed", so maybe Mr Hazlitt agrees.
I also remember that there were examples in "The selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins where he shows how certain groups of animals behave sub-optimally (with respect to avoiding predation) because the "optimal" behavior can not evolve due to problems almost identical to the street cleaner problem.
So my question is this: Do Austrians acknowledge that there are a variety of "services" or "institutions" that are of benefit to society that will not evolve naturally from a free market that should rightly be set-up by a government? Is there a list somewhere that most austrians would agree upon? For example police? teachers? street cleaners? "a legal system"? infrastructure builders (road/rail)?
What Went Wrong with Economics
No, we don't. What is it with this obsessive drive on the part of some people to find something for the state to do? If someone free-rides and people decide to provide the service regardless that's a "cost-benefit" equation too. If the other shopkeepers decide they want a clean street it's up to them to provide it. If one shopkeeper does not want to, tough luck. They can either figure out a way to make them do so (without aggressing) or provide the service anyway. Forcefully making individuals contribute to the service's provision is never a clear "benefit" due to the subjectivity of value, and the coerced party's perceived losses (and probably because it'll also preclude the evolution of non-forceful means of dealing with free-rider problems.)
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus: No, we don't. What is it with this obsessive drive on the part of some people to find something for the state to do?
No, we don't. What is it with this obsessive drive on the part of some people to find something for the state to do?
So is being Austrian one and the same thing as being an anarchist? Is Henry Haslitt not a good Austrian? I though people worshiped him at mises.org?
mickanomics: So is being Austrian one and the same thing as being an anarchist? Is Henry Haslitt not a good Austrian? I though people worshiped him at mises.org?
There are non-libertarian austrians. Its rare. Though libertarianism could mean small government advocates which I think Hazlitt was.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
The same concept is applicable to roads. I have the first-hand experience given that I come from a family of Spanish farmers. At least in Castilla-La Mancha, rural roads are private, and this includes long paved highways that go from town to town (and are, most of the time, in better condition than the public highways). The way the network is set up is very interesting, given that really the roads are only meant to service part of the countryside. Specifically, they are meant to give the farmer access to his land. And so, there are "main arteries" that link multiple roads together. Sometimes farmers use public highways, othertimes they build private arteries. These large arteries, however, necessarilly link to many plots of land. It's not necessary for every farmer to pitch in to build this artery, because regardless if one farmer wants to pay or not, all the farmers need it to communicate by tractor to their land. Some farmers will freeload, but it is subjectively valuable for the rest to allow this to happen, because the benefits are greater than the cost still.
The same can happen with minor unpaved roads that go from these arteries to the actual plots of land, but in this case it is possible for a farmer to deny access to someone who they don't want on the road, since it is their private property.
No, being an Austrian means strictly speaking the state is merely a fact to be analysed like any other. Hazlitt might not have taken his analysis far enough on some goods, and the same goes for Mises. It is no fault of theirs, they did enough in their lives.
mickanomics: I've long suspected that there is a problem with the evolution of street cleaning in a free market. Imagine a shopping district which tends to become cluttered with rubbish, making the area less attractive to shoppers. Suppose that if all the shop keepers banded together and contributed to hiring street cleaning services for the area then there would be a net benefit in terms of extra visitors that would lead to extra profits that are greater than the cost of the cleaners by some small margin. Now the problem is that if one of the shop-keepers does not want to join the scheme then what can be done? The other shop keepers can not force him to join in. Now the shop keeper that won't pay causes all sorts of problems: 1. it means that the others will have to pay more and the cost benefit equation may no longer work. 2. Other shop keepers may get angry and say "well if he's not paying then why should I". The system may all too easily fail or not get off the ground in the first place. I've just read "Economics in one lesson" by Henry Haslitt and noted that on page 69, "street cleaners" is included in a list of "public officeholders whose services are really needed", so maybe Mr Hazlitt agrees. I also remember that there were examples in "The selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins where he shows how certain groups of animals behave sub-optimally (with respect to avoiding predation) because the "optimal" behavior can not evolve due to problems almost identical to the street cleaner problem. So my question is this: Do Austrians acknowledge that there are a variety of "services" or "institutions" that are of benefit to society that will not evolve naturally from a free market that should rightly be set-up by a government? Is there a list somewhere that most austrians would agree upon? For example police? teachers? street cleaners? "a legal system"? infrastructure builders (road/rail)?
Ever been to a shopping mall?
Before I answer your question, I have a question for clarification: Who owns the road/street/pathway?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
If we need a road we will build it. If we need it cleaned we will clean it. We don't have to steal from people in order to accomplish this. Gunvernment consumes only. It produces nothing. Voluntary exchange accomplishes every "essential" gunvernment service.
Read Bastiat. You can get his complete works for free on this website. You can also buy a hard copy if you want.
Criminals, there ought to be a law.
Criminals there ought to be a whole lot more. Bon Scott.
Jon Irenicus:What is it with this obsessive drive on the part of some people to find something for the state to do?
More irreducible complexity flim flam. Apologies to any creationists here but the similarities are startling.
You're not the first person to notice the similarities.
The responsibility for keeping the roads clean belongs to the rightful owner of the road. If the shopkeepers have to join together to provide themselves this service, then clearly this is a case of government failure.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Daniel: Ever been to a shopping mall?
A shopping mall is a special case where the street cleaning problem does not occur because the shopkeepers share a single landlord.
Daniel: Before I answer your question, I have a question for clarification: Who owns the road/street/pathway?
Errmmm, I don't know. I never thought about that - I guess its the state.
Stranger: The responsibility for keeping the roads clean belongs to the rightful owner of the road. If the shopkeepers have to join together to provide themselves this service, then clearly this is a case of government failure.
What if the government consists of people with Austrian tendencies and they deliberately don't clean the streets because they are hoping that the free market will come up with a solution. Then my original problem still stands.
mickanomics: Daniel: Ever been to a shopping mall? A shopping mall is a special case where the street cleaning problem does not occur because the shopkeepers share a single landlord. Daniel: Before I answer your question, I have a question for clarification: Who owns the road/street/pathway? Errmmm, I don't know. I never thought about that - I guess its the state.
Let's try this again. In a free market, who would own the roads/streets/sidewalk/pathway?
mickanomics: What if the government consists of people with Austrian tendencies and they deliberately don't clean the streets because they are hoping that the free market will come up with a solution. Then my original problem still stands.
You ignored my post. There was no problem to begin with. If it is beneficial for a shopkeeper to keep a street clean, because otherwise he would get not business, then regardless of whether or not another shopkeeper would help him out financially, he would still clean the street, because the benefit is greater than the cost. It's the same theoretically problem which comes about with private road building; but, the problem doesn't exist.