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
The Morning Star: mickanomics:No understanding of contracts / smallprint required by consumer - no need to even read any contracts. Do you see this as a positive?
mickanomics:No understanding of contracts / smallprint required by consumer - no need to even read any contracts.
Do you see this as a positive?
Yes (everything else being equal). Who the hell wants to plough through reams of additional legalese every time they move house.
I suppose not people who defer use of their brains to the state.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
mickanomics:Yes (everything else being equal). Who the hell wants to plough through reams of additional legalese every time they move house.
What are your thoughts on institutional corruption and how it develops?
The Morning Star: What are your thoughts on institutional corruption and how it develops?
I'm a beginner in this field. I will bow to the greater expertise in this forum. If any of my arguments appear flawed because of my lack on knowledge in this area please feel free to put me right. This is not a sarcastic answer, I genuinely mean it.
I have a hunch though, that many types of cronyism can occur within private utility providers because the market forces (that should reduce cronyism) are weak in the field of utilities (as opposed to consumer goods, where they are strong).
Justin Spahr-Summers:I agree, but it's not enough to merely explain that private businesses could take over existing infrastructure of any kind. We have to be able to describe how infrastructure of such complexity could originate on a free market.
This is a trap.
I'm a big fan of Stephan Molyneux's "against me" style of argumentation. If someone believes in the initiation of force to create order, then fine. You can't debate with someone willing to use a gun on you. If they do not, then they have to reject state monopoly. It really is as simple as that.
It is a trap, having to explain how a libertarian world would work, because if we could know, that is an argument for central planning.
I get stuck into it sometimes (see my posts to this thread) but what turned me from a minarchist to an anarchist was that while I was hung up on who would create the roads (and I still don't profess to be an expert at that topic) I had to accept the truth that the initiation of force is illegitimate.
I don't know how defense will occur. I don't know what will happen to children. I don't know what will happen to space exploration, or universities.
But I believe that people working together peacefully can solve these and unforeseen problems as well as, if not better than, people currently solve them by using violence against one another.
liberty student: But I believe that people working together peacefully can solve these and unforeseen problems as well as, if not better than, people currently solve them by using violence against one another.
As I said in the very first post in this thread, it seems that evolution has a fundamental problem with certain types of cooperative behavior. Maybe you should take this as a clue, perhaps the use of force is fundamentally the only solution.
mickanomics:Maybe you should take this as a clue, perhaps the use of force is fundamentally the only solution.
Do you befriend and associate with people that hold this opinion? Or did you not mean that in the general sense?
mickanomics:As I said in the very first post in this thread, it seems that evolution has a fundamental problem with certain types of cooperative behavior.
Is your sense of ethics guided by your perception of evolution?
twistedbydsign99: Do you befriend and associate with people that hold this opinion? Or did you not mean that in the general sense?
Ermmm, I don't fully understand your query.... But what I meant was that perhaps mother nature is trying to tell us something. Perhaps a search for a solution without threats of violence is futile.
liberty student: Is your sense of ethics guided by your perception of evolution?
Not at all. But my sense of what systems are possible may may be.
Or perhaps not. Perhaps this is meaningless twaddle. Just maybe.
Look, if you want to live in some monolithic state, feel free to do so. Leave non-consenting parties out of it and enjoy all the state you want.
mickanomics:Not at all. But my sense of what systems are possible may may be.
Well it is possible for me to rape, murder and pillage. Those are all possibilities.
I think you know where I am going with this. Either the use of force is right, or it is wrong. Making appeals to objective efficiency/evolution (efficiency is subjective btw) isn't a sound tactic for sidestepping that.
mickanomics: Ermmm, I don't fully understand your query.... But what I meant was that perhaps mother nature is trying to tell us something. Perhaps a search for a solution without threats of violence is futile.
So you are saying there is a class of problems that might exist that might require initiatory violence to solve. I agree there are some, like how do you enslave someone, you require initiatory violence to solve this problem. And my question was just: "Would you voluntarily interact with someone who believes initiatory force is required to solve problems?"
Jon Irenicus:Look, if you want to live in some monolithic state, feel free to do so. Leave non-consenting parties out of it and enjoy all the state you want.
The problem is that always and everywhere, theroghout history, all over the world and even throughout the animal kingdom(!), freeloaders are disliked by the majority. Minor freeloading is liable to lead to minor irritaion amongst the majority and major freeloading is liable to lead to major irritation amonst the majority. Is it really surprising that its so difficult to find a system where freeloaders are immune to violence?
mickanomics:Is it really surprising that its so difficult to find a system where freeloaders are immune to violence?
That system is ever present. It is called government.