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
Justin Spahr-Summers:There are many, many counter-examples provided by other posters in this thread, and you just need to spend ten to fifteen minutes looking at some of their posts to see not only rationale for private roads and utilities, but examples inasmuch as private businesses are allowed to operate in such industries.
I have read every single post in this entire thread. I know full well that private roads exist, tens of thousands of them and in countries where the vast majority of roads are state owned. I also have learned that it needs a special set of circumstances for them to exist, and without those set of circumstances in place then they don't appear to exist. And nobody here has found a single example of a private road anywhere on earth that exists without that special set of circumstances. Maybe its you that needs to "spend ten to fifteen minutes" going through the posts to realize that what I've said is true. We've gone through it all in a lot of detail.
mickanomics:I have read every single post in this entire thread. I know full well that private roads exist, tens of thousands of them and in countries where the vast majority of roads are state owned. I also have learned that it needs a special set of circumstances for them to exist, and without those set of circumstances in place then they don't appear to exist. And nobody here has found a single example of a private road anywhere on earth that exists without that special set of circumstances.
I have read every single post in this entire thread. I know full well that private roads exist, tens of thousands of them and in countries where the vast majority of roads are state owned. I also have learned that it needs a special set of circumstances for them to exist, and without those set of circumstances in place then they don't appear to exist. And nobody here has found a single example of a private road anywhere on earth that exists without that special set of circumstances.
"A special set of circumstances" is just a fancy way of saying "demand." If there is little or no demand for roads (or water mains, or whatever other government monopoly you want to talk about), businesses won't invest time and money to develop them. Just because we have a huge number of densely-packed roads, and just because we have a sole provider of piped water, does not mean that more efficient operations don't, won't, or can't exist. Examples are scarce because governments force them to be (whether there's demand, like filc asserts, or not)... the soundness of the argument rests upon the logic inherent in it: if consumers want something, businesses will find a way to provide this something, including working together if it's in their mutual interests.
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.—Ludwig von Mises
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.
mickanomics: Justin Spahr-Summers:There are many, many counter-examples provided by other posters in this thread, and you just need to spend ten to fifteen minutes looking at some of their posts to see not only rationale for private roads and utilities, but examples inasmuch as private businesses are allowed to operate in such industries. I have read every single post in this entire thread. I know full well that private roads exist, tens of thousands of them and in countries where the vast majority of roads are state owned. I also have learned that it needs a special set of circumstances for them to exist, and without those set of circumstances in place then they don't appear to exist. And nobody here has found a single example of a private road anywhere on earth that exists without that special set of circumstances. Maybe its you that needs to "spend ten to fifteen minutes" going through the posts to realize that what I've said is true. We've gone through it all in a lot of detail.
No roads exist that are 1 mile wide, in a town with a population of more than 4 billion, and made out of marble. Oh noez!!! Marketz eekwelz phayel!!!!
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."
Daniel:No roads exist that are 1 mile wide, in a town with a population of more than 4 billion, and made out of marble. Oh noez!!! Marketz eekwelz phayel!!!!
Someone else made effectively the same argument many pages ago - I refuted it then. I can not be bothered to repeat myself.
Justin Spahr-Summers:"A special set of circumstances" is just a fancy way of saying "demand."
I don't think it is. This argument will get very confused indeed if I let that assertion pass. Have you read the entire thread?
mickanomics: Justin Spahr-Summers:"A special set of circumstances" is just a fancy way of saying "demand." I don't think it is. This argument will get very confused indeed if I let that assertion pass.
"A special set of circumstances" is just a fancy way of saying "demand."
I don't think it is. This argument will get very confused indeed if I let that assertion pass.
Suffice to say, there is no barrier so imposing that a business wouldn't attempt to overcome if they saw profit (as in, revenue above the cost of overcoming said barrier) on the other side. I'd venture to say that roads and water would both be very profitable, seeing as they're both incredibly vital to our current way of life—the latter a bit more than the former, of course. Your argument, in essence, is that individuals would not be able to provide for their own transportation nor for their own water, and no business would do it for them, were it not for government forcing them to.
mickanomics:Have you read the entire thread?
Have you read the entire thread?
Yes.
mickanomics: Daniel:No roads exist that are 1 mile wide, in a town with a population of more than 4 billion, and made out of marble. Oh noez!!! Marketz eekwelz phayel!!!! Someone else made effectively the same argument many pages ago - I refuted it then. I can not be bothered to repeat myself.
Ironic, because I think many other posters here feel the same way about discussing things with you.
Yes, it was you who made effectively the same argument many pages ago, and I refuted it then.
I just came up with the following thought experiment....
Imagine a long street in the center of new york with 5000 houses or flats. Each dwelling is owned by a different person.
Then one day God himself scraped off all the tarmac and replace the entire road with dirt, puddles, trees grass etc. He can calls down to the populous and says "The government is not allowed to pay for, or build a new read here otherwise I will order up some pestilence, famine and floods. The residents can re-build the road if they want to, but the government are not allowed to pressurize them to do so".
Please tell me what you would expect to see in that "road" five years later. If you think there will be a proper tarmac road then tell me:
A) who built it with what money and who pays for its upkeep.
B) Would they let big heavy lorries drive down their road?
C) Presumably there will be at least some residents that don't want to pay anything for the road. How they are treated by their neighbors?
mickanomics:Imagine a long street in the center of new york with 5000 houses or flats. Each dwelling is owned by a different person.
I know you're trying to set up the thought experiment in a way that causes no private road to be built, so fine. Just realize this never happens on the free market because the collective action problem has historically been solved time and time again.
mickanomics: Please tell me what you would expect to see in that "road" five years later. If you think there will be a proper tarmac road then tell me:
mickanomics:A) who built it with what money and who pays for its upkeep.
mickanomics:B) Would they let big heavy lorries drive down their road?
mickanomics:C) Presumably there will be at least some residents that don't want to pay anything for the road. How they are treated by their neighbors?
mickanomics:i have read every single post in this entire thread. I know full well that private roads exist, tens of thousands of them and in countries where the vast majority of roads are state owned. I also have learned that it needs a special set of circumstances for them to exist
mickanomics:I just came up with the following thought experiment....
mickanomics:Imagine a long street in the center of new york with 5000 houses or flats. Each dwelling is owned by a different person. Then one day God himself scraped off all the tarmac and replace the entire road with dirt, puddles, trees grass etc. He can calls down to the populous and says "The government is not allowed to pay for, or build a new read here otherwise I will order up some pestilence, famine and floods. The residents can re-build the road if they want to, but the government are not allowed to pressurize them to do so".
Knight_of_BAAWA:how about something that has some comport with reality.
Surely the whole study of anarchism is a study of how things would work *in theory* because anarchy has never existed anywhere for any sustained period in the modern world... Actually I'm just guessing there - has it existed for a sustained period somewhere?
mickanomics: I just came up with the following thought experiment.... Imagine a long street in the center of new york with 5000 houses or flats. Each dwelling is owned by a different person. Then one day God himself scraped off all the tarmac and replace the entire road with dirt, puddles, trees grass etc. He can calls down to the populous and says "The government is not allowed to pay for, or build a new read here otherwise I will order up some pestilence, famine and floods. The residents can re-build the road if they want to, but the government are not allowed to pressurize them to do so".
Hey guys, I have a question that points out a hole in the free market theory, which is how can the free market deal with God's wrath?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Knight_of_BAAWA:Yes: government acquiescence, usually.
I'm sure you are wrong there. Certainly in the UK.