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
nirgrahamUK: http://www.privateroads.co.uk/linksFAQ.html
http://www.privateroads.co.uk/linksFAQ.html
Thanks for the link. I shall have a good read of the PRS site before commenting further.
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?
Why would there be large cities? Perhaps large cities are only possible because of public roads. Which then leads one to ask, are large cities even desirable? Would they be desirable with private roads?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/34508.html
Look, I really don't care about people's hangups with individual liberty, sovereignty, free markets and roads. I just answer a lot of these threads, so I am somewhat prepared for the debate. The state is a criminal myth. It is institutionalized violence. It abrogates free will. I feel fairly confident that free people, will figure out the roads without city planners, and bureaucrats.
You know, when I was a minarchist, I worried about how things would work in a free market too. But when I weighed the moral argument, the bright truth about state illegitimacy and violence, I couldn't let minor hangups about who will provide clean water, or who will arrest criminals continue to chain me to the state as the best solution. If bureacrats and scoundrels can provide these services now, why can't honest and intelligent private citizens?
mickanomics: The roads Johnathan mentioned do not fulfill my criteria - i.e. >500 residents.
The roads Johnathan mentioned do not fulfill my criteria - i.e. >500 residents.
Some towns in Castilla La-Mancha have populations of 20,000+. My town has a population of 3,000+. Not all these are farmers. But, for example, the private highway which connects Socuellamos with El Provencio (20,000+ and 3,000+, respectively) is an example of an agricultural highway which is completely private and has a lot of traffic.
It's not as if you can just build anything anywhere you want. We have state planning of land use called "zoning". Every construction is the whim of local bureaucrats.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: mickanomics: The roads Johnathan mentioned do not fulfill my criteria - i.e. >500 residents. Some towns in Castilla La-Mancha have populations of 20,000+. My town has a population of 3,000+. Not all these are farmers. But, for example, the private highway which connects Socuellamos with El Provencio (20,000+ and 3,000+, respectively) is an example of an agricultural highway which is completely private and has a lot of traffic.
I was talking about roads which have residents live *along* the road, like in a city. I just looked at google maps of the road you are talking about. It looks like a road bounded on each side by fields. It is not a residential road.
liberty student: And there is a bit about Sweden in there.
And there is a bit about Sweden in there.
Wikipedia states "the same article notes that the government plays an active roll in administering these roads". My claim is that certain types of private road will not evolve in a free market. So if these roads appear with the government playing an "active role", then it is not a counterexample.
oh my god... STREET SWEEPERS! I have wasted my life. Can I somehow acquire these street sweepers if I toil in the communist salt mines? Because that would be worth it.
China where private companies are allowed to build private freeways. Btw, your logic is profoundly retarded.
If you are enslaved, then you are not free. Thus, according to your logic, since your freedom does not exist, it follows that you must be enslaved.
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."
After being accused of not doing my research, I decided to get in contact with "Private Roads Services" (privateroads.co.uk). I had a few emails back and forth and can now tell you some of the things they said.
The guy spoke of something he coined a "dissident ratio" which was the fraction of residents who refused to take part in a private road scheme. He said the success or failure of a plan to opt out of government control of a road was very sensitive to this ratio:
"up to about 10% seems tolerable; but this is a very sensitive number in the context of private roads and estates, since the majority will be unwilling to devote resources (their own time and money) to managing the road in order to benefit the minority. Result: individuals opt out and join the minority, the number of dissidents quickly rises, and the organisation collapses. "
"The private roads which we have in England and Wales are either cul-de-sacs or through-roads which the public don't really need to use, because there is a nearby adopted road which gets them where they want to go. Large numbers of these are not subject to public rights of way (at any rate for motor vehicles - see NERC). I've never heard of residents opening the road to the public but charging a toll, though many take steps to prevent public encroachment (notices, gates and other barriers)."
He also said that the largest number of residents he knew of in a private road in the UK was 420.
I had not been considering cul-de-sac's and roads with very limited through-traffic before before in my discussions. So I'm going to slightly modify my challenge to this as follows:
I challenge anyone here to find a single private road on planet earth which meets the following criteria: 500 or more residents - A significant amount of traffic which is not simply the residents/friends driving to their homes - the residents must not all share a common landlord.
Result: individuals opt out and join the minority, the number of dissidents quickly rises, and the organisation collapses. "
Tough shit, now isn't it? People will have to get used to finding ways of providing roads for themselves or do without. They have no right to force anyone to provide it for them and if they are too stupid to contribute to its financing and prefer going without, well too bad.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
mickanomics: I challenge anyone here to find a single private road on planet earth which meets the following criteria: 500 or more residents - A significant amount of traffic which is not simply the residents/friends driving to their homes - the residents must not all share a common landlord.
What is the point of a challenge where you exclude all logical solutions right at the begginning?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger: What is the point of a challenge where you exclude all logical solutions right at the begginning?
Well it appears to be debatable whether or not a road of this type is logical or not. I suggest that it is not. Other people here suggest that it is. If there were some examples somewhere in the world then that would be evidence against my position. If there are none then that supports my position.
mickanomics:I challenge anyone here to find a single private road on planet earth which meets the following criteria: 500 or more residents - A significant amount of traffic which is not simply the residents/friends driving to their homes - the residents must not all share a common landlord.
mickanomics: After being accused of not doing my research, I decided to get in contact with "Private Roads Services" (privateroads.co.uk). I had a few emails back and forth and can now tell you some of the things they said. The guy spoke of something he coined a "dissident ratio" which was the fraction of residents who refused to take part in a private road scheme. He said the success or failure of a plan to opt out of government control of a road was very sensitive to this ratio: "up to about 10% seems tolerable; but this is a very sensitive number in the context of private roads and estates, since the majority will be unwilling to devote resources (their own time and money) to managing the road in order to benefit the minority. Result: individuals opt out and join the minority, the number of dissidents quickly rises, and the organisation collapses. " "The private roads which we have in England and Wales are either cul-de-sacs or through-roads which the public don't really need to use, because there is a nearby adopted road which gets them where they want to go. Large numbers of these are not subject to public rights of way (at any rate for motor vehicles - see NERC). I've never heard of residents opening the road to the public but charging a toll, though many take steps to prevent public encroachment (notices, gates and other barriers)." He also said that the largest number of residents he knew of in a private road in the UK was 420. I had not been considering cul-de-sac's and roads with very limited through-traffic before before in my discussions. So I'm going to slightly modify my challenge to this as follows: I challenge anyone here to find a single private road on planet earth which meets the following criteria: 500 or more residents - A significant amount of traffic which is not simply the residents/friends driving to their homes - the residents must not all share a common landlord.
Hey, numbnuts! What this tells you is that people would rather use the "free" roads -- that its, roads paid for by other people -- than pay for their own seperate roads. Who the hell wouldn't? Numbnuts, if you could either live in a home that you had to pay for, or a home that was free to you and that other people paid for, which would you chose? The reason why your challange is idiotic, and why you are retarded in the clinical sense, is because your asking why the free market doesn't work in a non-free market. Numbnuts, you might as well ask why we can't make apple juice with oranges.