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
twistedbydsign99: So you are saying there is a class of problems that might exist that might require initiatory violence to solve.
So you are saying there is a class of problems that might exist that might require initiatory violence to solve.
Yes.
twistedbydsign99: my question was just: "Would you voluntarily interact with someone who believes initiatory force is required to solve problems?"
my question was just: "Would you voluntarily interact with someone who believes initiatory force is required to solve problems?"
If your question was "Would you voluntarily interact with someone who believes initiatory force is required to solve [some exceptional] problems?" then my answer would be yes.
If your question was "Would you voluntarily interact with someone who believes initiatory force is required to solve [most] problems?" then my answer would be "No, I'd try to avoid that type of person if at all possible".
mickanomics: Perhaps a search for a solution without threats of violence is futile.
Perhaps a search for a solution without threats of violence is futile.
So this was never really about street cleaners or how are roads going to be built - no surprise. I had asked you how you would build a road and you never answered that. Your focus has been on something else it would seem.
liberty student: I think you know where I am going with this. Either the use of force is right, or it is wrong.
I think you know where I am going with this. Either the use of force is right, or it is wrong.
The use of force is right or wrong depending on what it is used for. If its used to deprive an old lady of her purse so that you can spend the money on drugs then its probably wrong. If its used to *prevent* a mugger from taking an old lady's purse then its probably right.
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?
And why on earth is force the only way to deal with problems? Since when is it a "solution"? I guess in the way that smashing a TV that won't show an image is a "solution" to that problem...
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
mickanomics:The use of force is right or wrong depending on what it is used for. If its used to deprive an old lady of her purse so that you can spend the money on drugs then its probably wrong. If its used to *prevent* a mugger from taking an old lady's purse then its probably right.
The initiation of force. You know exactly what I am talking about, please don't try to make this about semantics.
Either you support aggression, which is the initiation of force, or you do not. Which is it?
wilderness: So this was never really about street cleaners or how are roads going to be built - no surprise. I had asked you how you would build a road and you never answered that. Your focus has been on something else it would seem.
Not in the slightest. I had no clue that this discussion would migrate to one about the use of violence.
I didn't answer your question about road building because you appeared to be playing a game with me. If you want me to answer a long series of questions, you had better tell me the point you are trying to make first otherwise I can not be bothered.
mickanomics: liberty student: I think you know where I am going with this. Either the use of force is right, or it is wrong. The use of force is right or wrong depending on what it is used for. If its used to deprive an old lady of her purse so that you can spend the money on drugs then its probably wrong. If its used to *prevent* a mugger from taking an old lady's purse then its probably right.
Lol.
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."
mickanomics: Government utility provision Private utility provision Slow change by voting. Slow change by market forces. Great economy of scale. Less economy of scale. Decisions can be made once. Repetition of the same decisions being made by multiple parties. No understanding of contracts / smallprint required by consumer - no need to even read any contracts. Great understanding of contracts / smallprint essential to avoid poor value service provision. Utility provider can use force against you if you don’t pay. Utility provider can use force against you if you don’t pay. No easy way to switch from one provider to another. No easy way to switch from one provider to another. Competition between providers is hampered.* Competition between providers is hampered.**
Government utility provision
Private utility provision
Slow change by voting.
Slow change by market forces.
Great economy of scale.
Less economy of scale.
Decisions can be made once.
Repetition of the same decisions being made by multiple parties.
No understanding of contracts / smallprint required by consumer - no need to even read any contracts.
Great understanding of contracts / smallprint essential to avoid poor value service provision.
Utility provider can use force against you if you don’t pay.
No easy way to switch from one provider to another.
Competition between providers is hampered.*
Competition between providers is hampered.**
Michanomics, your comparison's and forsight of this comparison is based on the current system of governmental force. Since we can only speculate what a true free market would bring I would attempt to use free utility like services as an example. Home internet for example is an area where the government has for the most part stayed out of.
liberty student: The initiation of force. You know exactly what I am talking about, please don't try to make this about semantics. Either you support aggression, which is the initiation of force, or you do not. Which is it?
I have no idea what you are saying. Force can be good or bad, so how can I "support it or not"? It appears an ill formed question.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, I genuinely have no idea what you are getting at.
mickanomics: wilderness: So this was never really about street cleaners or how are roads going to be built - no surprise. I had asked you how you would build a road and you never answered that. Your focus has been on something else it would seem. Not in the slightest. I had no clue that this discussion would migrate to one about the use of violence. ...
Not in the slightest. I had no clue that this discussion would migrate to one about the use of violence. ...
Lol. Of course it's been about violence. I won't bother explaining anything to you since we know you are incapable of understanding basic concepts.
mickanomics:I had no clue that this discussion would migrate to one about the use of violence.
But that is exactly what the argument for a free market is based upon. It can't be based on utility, since value is subjective, and there is no objective conception of utility.
You're trying to make a means justifies the ends argument. You claim only the state can handle roads, and the state only does what it does with violence.
Let's have an honest debate and point out the gun in the room.
mickanomics: liberty student: The initiation of force. You know exactly what I am talking about, please don't try to make this about semantics. Either you support aggression, which is the initiation of force, or you do not. Which is it? ... I genuinely have no idea what you are getting at.
... I genuinely have no idea what you are getting at.
It's ok. We're not the government so we won't force you to take any medication.
mickanomics:I have no idea what you are saying. Force can be good or bad, so how can I "support it or not"? It appears an ill formed question.
Do you believe a legitimate mean to an end is the initiation of force?
eg. If you are hungry, is it acceptable to steal?
mickanomics: Not in the slightest. I had no clue that this discussion would migrate to one about the use of violence. I didn't answer your question about road building because you appeared to be playing a game with me. If you want me to answer a long series of questions, you had better tell me the point you are trying to make first otherwise I can not be bothered.
I was trying to cut to the chase. And underlying assumptions of yours are apparently a hang-up for you. The migration of the discussion to violence is what this is all about. If you are hung-up on how are street cleaners and roads going to happen and yet hold these assumptions that violence only solves some problems I'd say the easy part of this inquiry of yours is street cleaners and road building. The more devastating, obviously, avenue of inquiry influencing these or who knows what else in your opinion about this world is your personal mode of violence. What that mode is (fear based or you like to initiate violence, etc...) is a foundational premise of your making. Why else would you still wonder how roads are going to be built without somebody present to make sure it happens - perhaps happen violently?
Dear "flic"
Thank you for your intelligent and detailed reply. I shall come back and address the points later... but I have to go right now. In the mean time I should say thet internet provision is not what I really had in mind as a "utility" (maybe my fault in not being clearer). I think that water, gas, electricity, roads and policing are all better examples. I think that discussing internet provision will muddy the waters too much.