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: 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.
The Morning Star: What are your thoughts on institutional corruption and how it develops?
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.
You're either being dishonest or you're intellectually retarded because I already explained to you that your entire argument is flawed becuase we do not live in a free market.
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: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.
Your definition of utility is a service provided by government. Had government previously provided internet I have no doubts it would have been in your list. The truth is internet or phone service deliverd to your home is not at all different.
Also your analogy where you falsy tried to find a situation where force was justifiable. What you fail to see however is that when you stop the robber you are
A) Not Initiating force, IE you did not initiate anything
B) Acting in self defense.
mickanomics: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.
Well its a good first step to accept the minarchist position. Now what are the characteristics of the exceptional problems? I would think one you care about is the free loading problem. So you would say maybe in the case of the street sweeper or lighthouse that the people should be robbed for their own good in order to pay for the service. But if it is true that the street sweeper due to freeloaders would not emerge without violence, why should violence be used to attain it? It doesn't follow that merely because a beneficial service would not exist without violence that violence should be employed to get it. What reason could justify this? I hold personal autonomy higher than street cleanliness in the category of things I prefer.
liberty student: eg. If you are hungry, is it acceptable to steal?
eg. If you are hungry, is it acceptable to steal?
If your car broke down in the desert and you had gone three days without water, then you came across a traveler that was loaded up with more water than he could possibly drink on his journey and he refused to give you some, would you consider stealing some? I would. I would consider it acceptable for anyone to in those circumstances.
mickanomics: liberty student: eg. If you are hungry, is it acceptable to steal? If your car broke down in the desert and you had gone three days without water, then you came across a traveler that was loaded up with more water than he could possibly drink on his journey and he refused to give you some, would you consider stealing some? I would. I would consider it acceptable for anyone to in those circumstances.
Why would you be travelling the desert by car and without enough water in case of an emergency?
Just concerning your criticism of the private provision...
mickanomics:Slow change by market forces.
At least, there will be some change at all. With government monopolies, you need to hope for a majority of people thinking the way the service is provided is bad an then hope that there is a party tackling the issue and there are no other issues more important to those who think that the service is provided badly.
mickanomics:Less economy of scale.
I suppose businesses will tend to grow to an optimum level, as there can be such a thing as too big a scale.
mickanomics:Utility provider can use force against you if you don’t pay.
I suppose the utility provider will find use to get his money, for example by contacting his and the clients security agency when payments are not met. Or the client's bank.
mickanomics:Repetition of the same decisions being made by multiple parties.
How about "everyone can decided for himself instead of being forced to accept the decision of the majority".
mickanomics:Great understanding of contracts / smallprint essential to avoid poor value service provision.
As noted before, this is actually a good thing. Just look around you and see what happens if people just vote for anything without even understanding it in the slightest.
mickanomics:No easy way to switch from one provider to another.
Why? Whereas with government, there is no way to switch the provider, switching on a free market might just need a e-mail or two.
mickanomics:Competition between providers is hampered.**
Now, why should it not be possible to just switch the provider without moving? While government is establishing a territorial monopoly, no private business can do so, as you can freely contract other providers without anyone being able to do something about it.
I am quite new to this forum (started reading yesterday), but this is already the second forum topic (of the few I read) which makes me wonder if people trying to show the deficits of libertarianism like the really quite important issue of cleaning a street in a shopping district have even read some of the basic works concerning a free market society. And if not, I wonder why they do ignore all arguments by principle, even though they are rather clear and logic (I think this thread was answered in the first few posts).
EDIT: I am sorry for referring to a rather old post, I thought mickanomic's table was the last post in this thread (I thought I did click on the "last page" button), but I was wrong.
mickanomics: If your car broke down in the desert and you had gone three days without water, then you came across a traveler that was loaded up with more water than he could possibly drink on his journey and he refused to give you some, would you consider stealing some? I would. I would consider it acceptable for anyone to in those circumstances.
How come the only example you give is one of a fairy tail? If you were out in the desert without spare water in your truck and broke down, you likely what you deserve. It's not that other fellows fault that you were negligent and incompetent.
Your fairy tail is unlikely to ever be realized. It has been argued that altruism increases in a free society, and decreases in a controlled society. So I would argue in the situation you fabricated the odds of being denied water would be greater in a controlled society as water is likely to be a controlled commodity and as is always the case with controlled commodities there is likely to be shortages and mis-allocations. Therefore the person who passes you in the desert has to decide. If he gives you some water he would be in effect stealing from the government, and if caught could face charges which put him in jail. He may very well rather see you suffer and save his own hide.
Furthermore, to illustrate how rediculous your line of reasoning is, as anyone can make anything up. Let me appened something to your story.
If your car broke down in the desert and you had gone three days without water, then you came across a traveler that was loaded up with more water than he could possibly drink on his journey and he refused to give you some, would you consider stealing some? The man with the water however is delivering a truck load of the liquid to help stop a massive forest fire currently burning down people's homes. If he stops to give you water people may die and property will surely be lost from the raging fire. He has no time to waste! Would it still be moral to stop him at gun point and take his water, knowing full well where he is going and what he is doing? If not so, then how can you justify that violence is ok in ignorance?
My point is, your line of reasoning is somethign commonly used by the left. Where a highly unlikely story is played out but only described from one man's point of view. All other men in the story are automatically deemed villain's. Their side of the story is never relevant. So your argument can be tailored and twisted to support your cause. You have provided proof that you can with bad reasoning attempt to justify murder, theft, and more. Allthis proves though is your irrationality and inability to reason.
twistedbydsign99: So you would say maybe in the case of the street sweeper or lighthouse that the people should be robbed for their own good in order to pay for the service. But if it is true that the street sweeper due to freeloaders would not emerge without violence, why should violence be used to attain it? It doesn't follow that merely because a beneficial service would not exist without violence that violence should be employed to get it. What reason could justify this? I hold personal autonomy higher than street cleanliness in the category of things I prefer.
So you would say maybe in the case of the street sweeper or lighthouse that the people should be robbed for their own good in order to pay for the service. But if it is true that the street sweeper due to freeloaders would not emerge without violence, why should violence be used to attain it? It doesn't follow that merely because a beneficial service would not exist without violence that violence should be employed to get it. What reason could justify this? I hold personal autonomy higher than street cleanliness in the category of things I prefer.
Well for a start all the preceding discussions led me to the firm conclusion that free market utilities can only work with contracts, i.e. the new homeowner has to agree to the contract before they move in. These contracts are necessarily in perpetuity. The consequence of the contracts that you signed up to can, in the long run, turn out to be very different from what you expected for a variety of reasons:
1. you made a mistake in your understanding of the consequences of the contract (all too easy to do).
2. the people you signed the contract with may sell up to other people who are not so good.
3. the people you signed up to may change their behavior from how they behaved in the past
And contracts are a kind of voluntary submission to the threat of violence.
So the free market does not avoid the violence against freeloaders problem.
Writing this I just had a thought... From my earlier correspondence with the guy from the private roads service, he says that from his real world experience, he thinks about 5% of the population have it in their nature not to like signing up to contracts. Perhaps if a free market was to be arranged then what would happen is that the 95% of cooperators would end up voluntarily submitting to the threat of violence in order to get the benefit of living in towns and cities with running water, electricity, gas, paved roads, street lighting etc, etc... and the non-cooperators would end up living in the hills in huts. They would collect their water from the local stream and light their houses with candles.
filc: Your definition of utility is a service provided by government. Had government previously provided internet I have no doubts it would have been in your list. The truth is internet or phone service deliverd to your home is not at all different.
I don't know if I defined utility at all, but whether I did or not I just think the internet is a grey area to discuss because it seems to be part military, part government, part private and just for good measure, international. All of which just make it quite different to the other utilities and much more complex to discuss for the purposes of this debate.
filc: Also your analogy where you falsy tried to find a situation where force was justifiable. What you fail to see however is that when you stop the robber you are A) Not Initiating force, IE you did not initiate anything B) Acting in self defense.
Is they guy with all the water in the desert *initiating* violence against the thirsty man by refusing to give him water?
No, he isn't initiating force by refusing to give the water.
And do you have anything other than special pleading?
Eliazar: Just concerning your criticism of the private provision... mickanomics:Slow change by market forces. At least, there will be some change at all. With government monopolies, you need to hope for a majority of people thinking the way the service is provided is bad an then hope that there is a party tackling the issue and there are no other issues more important to those who think that the service is provided badly.
If the market forces are very weak then the performance of the chosen provider can remain *permanently* a long way from optimal. Consider it as a mathematical optimization problem like finding a local minima in a "scalar field" where you start at a point away from the minima and then take a "pseudo random walk" where each step is part random and part in the direction of the minima. If the component in the direction of the minima is always very small then you would remain far from it most of the time.
Eliazar: mickanomics:Less economy of scale. I suppose businesses will tend to grow to an optimum level, as there can be such a thing as too big a scale.
Thats a reasonable point. I don't thing we've reached any conclusion about the optimal scale... but note that if the private utility becomes large then the provider starts to take on characteristics more like a government. It will be less "in touch" with the local needs.
Eliazar: mickanomics:Utility provider can use force against you if you don’t pay. I suppose the utility provider will find use to get his money, for example by contacting his and the clients security agency when payments are not met. Or the client's bank.
Sounds like you are agreeing with me on this point then. Or are you saying that taking money direct from my bank is non-violence (fine by me, but any sort of non-agreed to action against someone seems to be described as violence by most people on this forum).
Eliazar: mickanomics:Repetition of the same decisions being made by multiple parties. How about "everyone can decided for himself instead of being forced to accept the decision of the majority".
Ermmm... not true with the long term contracts.
Eliazar: mickanomics:Great understanding of contracts / smallprint essential to avoid poor value service provision. As noted before, this is actually a good thing. Just look around you and see what happens if people just vote for anything without even understanding it in the slightest.
A) The process of having to read the contracts is not a good thing in itself. You may claim that it leads to some good consequences, but if thats a different matter.
B) I look around me and see some good and bad government things I also see good and bad private things.
Eliazar: mickanomics:No easy way to switch from one provider to another. Why? Whereas with government, there is no way to switch the provider, switching on a free market might just need a e-mail or two.
It would be extremely difficult to switch utility (gas, water, road, electricity, policing) providers under any system.
mickanomics:It would be extremely difficult to switch utility (gas, water, road, electricity, policing) providers under any system.
huh?!?
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
mickanomics:1. you made a mistake in your understanding of the consequences of the contract (all too easy to do).
So you switch providers.
mickanomics:2. the people you signed the contract with may sell up to other people who are not so good.
Switch providers
mickanomics:3. the people you signed up to may change their behavior from how they behaved in the past
It's not in aproviders best interest to make clients un-happy. As they could just leave. I signed a contract with Comcast, but I can easily leave it and move to Qwest. I specifically signed up with comcast however as there is no penalty for ending the contract early. I can leave when I want. As a result qwest's contracts are becoming less restrctive as they are having trouble competing.
mickanomics:And contracts are a kind of voluntary submission to the threat of violence.
Explain yourself. This makes no sense. Unless your definition of violence and force is insanely scewed.
mickanomics:So the free market does not avoid the violence against freeloaders problem.
I don't understand this. I'm a laymen, speak normal english.
mickanomics:rom my earlier correspondence with the guy from the private roads service, he says that from his real world experience, he thinks about 5% of the population have it in their nature not to like signing up to contracts. Perhaps if a free market was to be arranged then what would happen is that the 95% of cooperators would end up voluntarily submitting to the threat of violence in order to get the benefit of living in towns and cities with running water, electricity, gas, paved roads, street lighting etc, etc... and the non-cooperators would end up living in the hills in huts.
lol. Good one.
When you want to talk seriously let us know.
nirgrahamUK: mickanomics:It would be extremely difficult to switch utility (gas, water, road, electricity, policing) providers under any system. huh?!?
How do you change water supplier? Are you expecting a multitude of pipes at your door and you can choose which one to connect to?
he's tinkering around, laying road maps, deciding where the stores and electrical lines will go, etc, etc...
mickanomics! Can I have a 20x20 swimming pool?