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
Daniel: mickanomics: Daniel:What this tells us 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? 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? I disagree - what I wrote tells us more information than your synopsis. Daniel:The reason why your challange is idiotic is because your asking why the free market doesn't work in a non-free market. free/non-free is a matter of degree. It seems to be free enough so that tens of thousands of private roads (of certain restricted types) have sprung up around the world. Well, then I suppose that the difference between rape and non-rape is a matter of degree.
mickanomics: Daniel:What this tells us 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? 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? I disagree - what I wrote tells us more information than your synopsis. Daniel:The reason why your challange is idiotic is because your asking why the free market doesn't work in a non-free market. free/non-free is a matter of degree. It seems to be free enough so that tens of thousands of private roads (of certain restricted types) have sprung up around the world.
Daniel:What this tells us 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? 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?
I disagree - what I wrote tells us more information than your synopsis.
Daniel:The reason why your challange is idiotic is because your asking why the free market doesn't work in a non-free market.
free/non-free is a matter of degree. It seems to be free enough so that tens of thousands of private roads (of certain restricted types) have sprung up around the world.
Well, then I suppose that the difference between rape and non-rape is a matter of degree.
I'll sit here quitely until you reply to this. Or are you afraid of being wrong, because your entire argument is based on the fallacy that "free/non-free is a matter of degree"?
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."
filc: A) She can ultimately back out of that contract. It's not lifetime binding. Unlike Government. B) She had the free option to look over the contract before she commited. Unlike Government We arn't saying there aren't bad people out there.
A) She can ultimately back out of that contract. It's not lifetime binding. Unlike Government.
B) She had the free option to look over the contract before she commited. Unlike Government
We arn't saying there aren't bad people out there.
A) - well not really - she could only "back out" of the contract by selling up and moving out. This would cause huge disruption, not to mention all the costs of selling/buying/moving. Hardly a solution.
B) - the contract won't reveal whether the freeholders/managing agents are decent people.
With a bad government, you can get rid of them at the ballot box. This is not a perfect solution by any means, but at least its a possibility.
mickanomics: A) - well not really - she could only "back out" of the contract by selling up and moving out. This would cause huge disruption, not to mention all the costs of selling/buying/moving. Hardly a solution. B) - the contract won't reveal whether the freeholders/managing agents are decent people. With a bad government, you can get rid of them at the ballot box. This is not a perfect solution by any means, but at least its a possibility.
I'm not sure I understand. Overthrowing a bad government via the ballot box is more of a possibility than moving home?
Daniel: I'll sit here quitely until you reply to this. Or are you afraid of being wrong, because your entire argument is based on the fallacy that "free/non-free is a matter of degree"?
Sorry you've had to "sit there quietly" for so long, but we are probably in different time zones and I have a job.
Imagine that you had a world of 10 billion people and it was a perfect anarchist system with perfect free trade everywhere. Then imagine another world identical in all respects, except there was a big bully there who insisted that one particular person X was not allow to purchase anything from another particular person Y - all other 9,999,999,998 people could trade as they wish. Presumably you would say this this second world simply "did not have free trade", whereas I would say "it has *almost* complete free trade". Is my description of the situation so foolish?
Presumably if you owned a car and the wing mirror got knocked off, you would cease to call the remainder a car.
The Morning Star: I'm not sure I understand. Overthrowing a bad government via the ballot box is more of a possibility than moving home?
I'm saying that under both systems we seem to potentially end up with both bad outcomes and unsatisfactory "escape routes".
The government based bad outcome: we have a bad government serving us badly and using threat of force to make us pay for the services.
The free market based bad outcome: We have bad freeholders serving us badly and using threat of force to make us pay.
The government based unsatisfactory "escape route": We attempt to change the government through the ballot box.
The free market based unsatisfactory "escape route": We sell our home and move elsewhere incurring substantial costs.
Its just not so clear to me that the free market is doing so much better than the government in this regard.
mickanomics: Its just not so clear to me that the free market is doing so much better than the government in this regard.
It's good that you admit to being a crank that calls the existing system "free market". This trolling is getting out of hand.
mickanomics: The Morning Star: I'm not sure I understand. Overthrowing a bad government via the ballot box is more of a possibility than moving home? I'm saying that under both systems we seem to potentially end up with both bad outcomes and unsatisfactory "escape routes". The government based bad outcome: we have a bad government serving us badly and using threat of force to make us pay for the services. The free market based bad outcome: We have bad freeholders serving us badly and using threat of force to make us pay. The government based unsatisfactory "escape route": We attempt to change the government through the ballot box. The free market based unsatisfactory "escape route": We sell our home and move elsewhere incurring substantial costs. Its just not so clear to me that the free market is doing so much better than the government in this regard.
I won't call you a troll like Caley, but we are nowhere near a free market. If you want examples of privately-owned highways, look at China.
Caley McKibbin: It's good that you admit to being a crank that calls the existing system "free market".
It's good that you admit to being a crank that calls the existing system "free market".
I don't see how the situation that my mother got herself stuck with would have been prevented in a more free market. So describing her contract with the freeholder as a free market trade is I think reasonable for the purposes of this debate.
Daniel: If you want examples of privately-owned highways, look at China.
If you want examples of privately-owned highways, look at China.
Please tell me more about these private highways in China. How did you come to hear about them?
mickanomics: Daniel: If you want examples of privately-owned highways, look at China. Please tell me more about these private highways in China. How did you come to hear about them?
Do you know how to learn mickanomics?
wilderness: Do you know how to learn mickanomics?
We are having a debate on a public forum about characteristics of roads. Daniel has just said "...look at China". Presumably he said this because he knows something about private roads in china. I just thought he might add another sentence or two for the benefit of both me and the followers of this thread. Perhaps a sentence like "there's a great article about them at xxxx" or "they run very efficiently and the residents are happy with them" or "I lived there so I know how good they are"... something like that.
mickanomics: wilderness: Do you know how to learn mickanomics? We are having a debate on a public forum about characteristics of roads. Daniel has just said "...look at China". Presumably he said this because he knows something about private roads in china. I just thought he might add another sentence or two for the benefit of both me and the followers of this thread. Perhaps a sentence like "there's a great article about them at xxxx" or "they run very efficiently and the residents are happy with them" or "I lived there so I know how good they are"... something like that.
I asked: Do you know how to learn? I didn't ask about the thread or what Daniel said, etc... I know the topic is street cleaners in a free market.
wilderness: I asked: Do you know how to learn?
I asked: Do you know how to learn?
Well I do have a degree in physics and a PhD in neural networks and am a multi award winning artificial intelligence programmer, so I would like to suggest that I do know something about learning.
mickanomics: wilderness: I asked: Do you know how to learn? Well I do have a degree in physics and a PhD in neural networks and am a multi award winning artificial intelligence programmer, so I would like to suggest that I do know something about learning.
How do I know if you are being dishonest or not?
I am not lying. I will send you some things in a personal email that will convince you.