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:Is there one city on earth with a population > 50,000 where all the roads are privately owned? And if not, why not?
The same reason why the US government forced thousands of men to fight and die in Vietnam against their will. The same reason why the Soviets operated gulags. The same reason why blacks were slaves.
They have the power of the gun, and endless devotion. That devotion is what they count on when they do violent and criminal things.
mickanomics: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)?
http://www.autoroutes.fr/en/homepage.html
Roads, roads, roads. We always have to start with the roads. Not the Constitution. Not taxes. Not war. Not education or pensions. It's the roads. No one can imagine private roads.
mickanomics: 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)?
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)?
I'm not sure if there's anyone who actually lives on it, but the Dulles Greenway, here in Virginia, has something like 48 thousand tolls per day. It was built (and as far as I know, maintained) by private funds. There's also the Alabama River Parkway, which IIRC is privately owned and built.
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.
If they were austrians the government wouldn't own the road in the first place.
If you just think about which places are presently the most littered, what do you come up with?
Just as I suspected - nobody has come up with a single example on planet earth of a private road that meets my criteria. The autoroutes of France fail because they do not have people living on them. They are motorways that join cities. What I was looking for was a road that people (>500) live on, where there is not a common landlord. The reason you can't find a single example is because it is farcical to arrange such a thing. If it made sense to anyone to have such a thing then there would be examples somewhere.
liberty student: Roads, roads, roads. We always have to start with the roads. Not the Constitution. Not taxes. Not war. Not education or pensions. It's the roads. No one can imagine private roads.
(residential) roads are simply a particularly clear example of where privatization can not work. Mrs Thatcher spent her years privatizing everything she could think of. In all her years in power she never even discussed the idea of privatizing residential roads. Believe me, she'd have done it if she thought it was doable.
mickanomics:If it made sense to anyone to have such a thing then there would be examples somewhere.
Negative proof fallacy.
mickanomics:The reason you can't find a single example is because it is farcical to arrange such a thing.
And yet nearly all roads in America were private roads at one time. Were those farcical times, occupied by farcical people?
mickanomics:(residential) roads are simply a particularly clear example of where privatization can not work.
Sure they can, and they do. Did you not read Jonathan's post? I think he remarked you skipped it. Did you skip it, or are you ignoring it?
mickanomics:Mrs Thatcher spent her years privatizing everything she could think of. In all her years in power she never even discussed the idea of privatizing residential roads. Believe me, she'd have done it if she thought it was doable.
Another negative proof fallacy. Lousy argumentation on your part.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_road
The most common type of private road is a residential road maintained by a homeowners association, housing co-op, or other group of individual homeowners (e.g. the private places of St. Louis, Missouri, Rossmoor, California, Celebration, Florida, Camp John Hay in Baguio, Borocay, the Ayala and Fort Bonifacio Development between Makati and Pasig, Laredo, Texas, and Ford's Colony near Williamsburg, Virginia).
and
England and Wales are thought to have about 40,000 private roads. They are not the responsibility of the local authority, so have to be maintained by residents.
And there is a bit about Sweden in there. Now unsourced Wikipedia is far from authoritative, but I will certainly accept it over a certain logical fallacy. You could have done an iota of research.
I see how the original poster switched from an innocuous question to a forceful answer.
There will be no street cleaners in a free society and therefore anarchy is doomed!
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
mickanomics: Saan: 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.
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.
Government is a noun not an adjective or adverb. Should we discuss the differences between the way I define a TV and you define a TV?
Criminals, there ought to be a law.
Criminals there ought to be a whole lot more. Bon Scott.
liberty student: And yet nearly all roads in America were private roads at one time. Were those farcical times, occupied by farcical people?
I totally concede that non residential main roads that join cities can reasonably charge tolls and will work.
I totally concede that residential roads with a *small* number of residents can work.
What I have great difficulty with is how a private residential road with a large number of residents, where there is not a common landlord, can work - i.e. like in most large cities. Please tell me, were there ever private roads of this type in America? And if there were, how successful were they?
mickanomics:What I have great difficulty with is how a private residential road with a large number of residents, where there is not a common landlord, can work - i.e. like in most large cities. Please tell me, were there ever private roads of this type in America? And if there were, how successful were they?
http://www.privateroads.co.uk/linksFAQ.html
Our largest member has more than 400 houses
i assume that two such streets one after the other would mean 800 houses, etc etc.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
liberty student: mickanomics:(residential) roads are simply a particularly clear example of where privatization can not work. Sure they can, and they do. Did you not read Jonathan's post? I think he remarked you skipped it. Did you skip it, or are you ignoring it?
The roads Johnathan mentioned do not fulfill my criteria - i.e. >500 residents.
liberty student: mickanomics:Mrs Thatcher spent her years privatizing everything she could think of. In all her years in power she never even discussed the idea of privatizing residential roads. Believe me, she'd have done it if she thought it was doable. Another negative proof fallacy. Lousy argumentation on your part.
Ok, not my finest argument. But It was not meant to be a proof - simply supporting evidence.