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
mickanomics: 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.
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.
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.
That makes no sense at all. You can't have government intervention in a free market, thus, in a free market, the government doesn't own the roads, thus, your original problem doesn't make any sense.
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."
Saan: Gunvernment consumes only. It produces nothing.
Gunvernment consumes only. It produces nothing.
Well it depends how you define government. If you define it as simply the politicians then thats true. Its like saying that the directors of large companies don't produce anything. But if you consider the government to be the superset of both politicians and government workers, then its entirely untrue. They produce roads, bridges, street lighting, policing services, teaching services, fire brigade services and in the UK they provide medical services too.
No. The people who produced the wealth in which the government stole from - those workers, those people - they produced, not the government. The government simply redistributes the wealth.
Daniel: in a free market, the government doesn't own the roads,
in a free market, the government doesn't own the roads,
If you were made president and you had the power to run the economy (even if all you did with your power was to undo all regulations and then promptly resign) then who would end up as the owner of a busy road in a city with houses and shops all along both sides?
mickanomics: Daniel: in a free market, the government doesn't own the roads, If you were made president and you had the power to run the economy (even if all you did with your power was to undo all regulations and then promptly resign) then who would end up as the owner of a busy road in a city with houses and shops all along both sides?
This question, although a dodge, actually makes sense. The roads would have to go people whose money was stolen to pay for those roads. However, how would we figure that out?
Btw, in a free market, the owner of a road would determine who would keep the road clean.
Daniel:This question, although a dodge, actually makes sense. The roads would have to go people whose money was stolen to pay for those roads. However, how would we figure that out?
I've proposed a solution to this problem. Auction the road, split the proceeds to the victims based on the amount of money stolen. It's just a rough idea, but Wombatron and I talked about this months ago. Seems a lot better than mutualist occupancy and use junk, where the drivers or nearby property owners get a road they may not have paid a nickel for.
wilderness: The people who produced the wealth in which the government stole from - those workers, those people - they produced, not the government.
The people who produced the wealth in which the government stole from - those workers, those people - they produced, not the government.
Sorry, but I don't understand that sentence.
Anyway, I think the government and its workers are rather like a huge company producing goods and services, with the government being the directors and the government workers being the employees. Note that the government employees work voluntarily for their wages - there is no coercion there. The coercion comes in the form of the income mechanism for the government company - i.e. taxes.
By the way they didn't steal from me. I gave them my tax money voluntarily because I know that I get a lot in return for that money. They only "steal" from those who don't wish to pay their taxes.
liberty student: I've proposed a solution to this problem. Auction the road,
I've proposed a solution to this problem. Auction the road,
Presumably the only reason anyone would buy a road is so that they could charge for its use. Right? How would they do that? Would we have tolls every few hundred yards as we drove from one road to another in a big city?
mickanomics:Anyway, I think the government and its workers are rather like a huge company producing goods and services, with the government being the directors and the government workers being the employees.
That's nuts. The government can't produce anything. They can't win wars, they can't manage a budget, and they incarcerate their own constituents for victimless crimes like prostitution and personal drug use.
The "workers" in your scenario, don't produce anything under government direction. They don't get "paid" they are forced to pay the directors, or they will be incarcerated, and if they resist further they will face violence.
mickanomics:Note that the government employees work voluntarily for their wages - there is no coercion there.
Government employees are paid with taxes confiscated from productive members of society. They aren't actually earning a wage, since they were not hired by the people who pay taxes, and they can't be fired by the people who pay taxes.
mickanomics:By the way they didn't steal from me. I gave them my tax money voluntarily because I know that I get a lot in return for that money.
Keep believing that they are providing a return on your investment.
mickanomics:Presumably the only reason anyone would buy a road is so that they could charge for its use. Right? How would they do that? Would we have tolls every few hundred yards as we drove from one road to another in a big city?
Sure, do you think roads fall out of the sky? Someone has to build them. Maintain them. That costs money.
Tolls make sense, because the drivers pay to use the road, and the people who dont use the road, don't have to pay for it. Externalities solved!
mickanomics: wilderness: The people who produced the wealth in which the government stole from - those workers, those people - they produced, not the government. Sorry, but I don't understand that sentence.
The government doesn't produce anything without taking taxes (by coercion thus stealing) to make what the government wants. That's not a liberty market.
mickanomics: Anyway, I think the government and its workers are rather like a huge company producing goods and services, with the government being the directors and the government workers being the employees. Note that the government employees work voluntarily for their wages - there is no coercion there. The coercion comes in the form of the income mechanism for the government company - i.e. taxes.
try not paying your taxes - it's coercion. And no the government doesn't sell anything and make a profit off of a people who voluntarily giving their money to the government. It's not a business. A business works within a profit/loss scenario. The government is currently bankrupt but still goes on by coercive measures. People choose to pay taxes, but if they don't then the government will come after such a person. Now I've heard of places in which people get away with not paying taxes, but the government in history has attempted at various times to come after these people. Some of them have actually been able to fight off the government and deterring the government from getting them, but these people had to use self-defense with weapons to stop the government from getting them.
mickanomics: By the way they didn't steal from me. I gave them my tax money voluntarily because I know that I get a lot in return for that money. They only "steal" from those who don't wish to pay their taxes.
good for you for cooperating with your government cause if you didn't...
liberty student: Tolls make sense, because the drivers pay to use the road, and the people who dont use the road, don't have to pay for it. Externalities solved!
Is there one city on earth with a population > 50,000 where all the roads are privately owned? And if not, why not?
Is there even one road on earth, with more than 500 people living along it, that is privately owned (where the owner of the road is not also the landlord of all the tenants)? And how is the cost of lighting and, cleaning and maintenance paid for? Do the residents and people parking on it have to pay?
People with Austrian tendencies would privatize the streets and the problem would disappear.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
mickanomics:Is there one city on earth with a population > 50,000 where all the roads are privately owned? And if not, why not?
Considering monarchical city-states as private landlords, a few have a population greater than 50,000, most notably the Emirates cities such as Dubai. In fact in Dubai it is real-estate corporations that own neighborhoods.
mickanomics: liberty student: I've proposed a solution to this problem. Auction the road, Presumably the only reason anyone would buy a road is so that they could charge for its use. Right? How would they do that? Would we have tolls every few hundred yards as we drove from one road to another in a big city?
On modern highways tolls are paid when entering and exiting, not at every milestone. You could have a model also like London where you must pay to enter the central zone. Alternatively you could only make people pay to connect their doorway to the road, much as one pays for a subscription to a utility.