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
Snowflake:This is an impractical living arrangement and would probably never arise on the free market.
Maybe so. But presumably, if you want anarchy, you have to start from where we are.
Snowflake:so the landlord can act on everyone's behalf
What is the difference between a landlord "acting on your behalf" and a government?
mickanomics:Maybe so. But presumably, if you want anarchy, you have to start from where we are.
mickanomics:What is the difference between a landlord "acting on your behalf" and a government?
mickanomics: filc:Is it impractical to have two types of milk at the grocery store? No, they are entirely different cases, for reasons discussed at length earlier in this thread.
filc:Is it impractical to have two types of milk at the grocery store?
No, they are entirely different cases, for reasons discussed at length earlier in this thread.
Are you trying to argue that some market goods are 'special' and don't follow traditional rules of economics? If so than I could see how you came to the conclusion that they are different. However if one lives in a state of reality, A = A. Market goods are market goods and all scarce things follow the same economic laws as anything else.
So they are not entirely different cases at all. You let scale disrupt your understanding of goods.
mickanomics:Hang on a second... it seems that my suggesting that B is true is due to my idiotic pretence to be omniscient, yet your assertion that A is true is somehow your genius expertise?
But you ARE PRETENDING to KNOW what the most effecient means of transporting drinking water is. You've passed a judgement that competition would be counter effective to effeciency. Allow me to quote yourself.
mickanomics:I'm just suggesting that its rather impractical to have two sets of mains running down one street.
So you ARE attempting to be omniscient. YOu ARE pretending to 'know it all'.
Whats worse is you openly admit to being ignornant on the topic, and are willingly going to continue to be ignorant of the subject. You refuse to read any book about the subject. Instead you somehow feal that you have the authority to make such silly arguments here while remaining in your state of ignorance.
mickanomics:I here by confess that I am not well read enough to know about such a citation. Or even if it exists. I am not pretending to know of such a citation. But filc has stated that "A" was "observed"... so I want to know about his "observation".
FYI Several pages earlier in this thread I posted a long example for you where third world countries when left unfettered they created their own private water distribution systems. So I ask you again, how can the poorest nations in our world accomplish such a simple service where we cannot?
mickanomics: filc:Is it impractical to have two types of milk at the grocery store? No, they are entirely different cases, for reasons discussed at length earlier in this thread. filc:Pretending to know how things SHOULD be is pretending to be omniscient. Hang on a second... it seems that my suggesting that B is true is due to my idiotic pretence to be omniscient, yet your assertion that A is true is somehow your genius expertise?
filc:Pretending to know how things SHOULD be is pretending to be omniscient.
Hang on a second... it seems that my suggesting that B is true is due to my idiotic pretence to be omniscient, yet your assertion that A is true is somehow your genius expertise?
The reason why I have not cited anything is because it's a very childish question. Would you ask me to cite the information revealing that gravity exists? Would you deny the existence of gravity untill I cited you that source? Furthermore what's a source? You need not look for a source to see the proof of my argument demonstrated.
Tell me Mickanomics, does your city provide you it's water? Does it provide the water because business's wouldn't? It is YOU who needs to prove to US that private company's would willingly neglect such a business endeavor. Not the other way around. The EVIDENCE is quiet apparent in nearly every major city in the United States.
Why not instead of keeping this thread going go read a book on the topic? THere are plenty here available on the mises.org site or the book store.
Knight_of_BAAWA:how about something that has some comport with reality.
mickanomics:Surely the whole study of anarchism is a study of how things would work *in theory*
Knight_of_BAAWA:Yes: government acquiescence, usually.
mickanomics:I'm sure you are wrong there. Certainly in the UK.
I don't think you are looking at government-free cities at the right scale. It makes a lot more sense for cities to scale up than for governments to. A large metropolitan area needs "streets" (infrastructure) that span over hundreds of kilometers.
But if the city is not a judge in disputes involving itself, and there are multiple such competing judges in this city, then this city is no different from any multi-national corporation. Just like Sony is staffed by citizens of many nations, and operates in many nations, so can a city.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
mickanomics:Imagine a long street in the center of new york with 5000 houses or flats. Each dwelling is owned by a different person.
Imagine a long street in the center of new york with 5000 houses or flats. Each dwelling is owned by a different person.
Like Snowflake said, this initial scenario is already impractical and typically only made possible through government intervention, for exactly the same reasons that you're trying to denounce the free market.
mickanomics:Then one day God himself scraped off all the tarmac and replace the entire road with dirt, puddles, trees grass etc.
Then one day God himself scraped off all the tarmac and replace the entire road with dirt, puddles, trees grass etc.
The only real "higher power" that would do such an idiotic thing is a government.
mickanomics: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.
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.
How can we pretend to know that? Only government and mickanomics ascribe omniscience to themselves. Any of the following could happen: all of the residents chip in because it's that beneficial to all of them; some of the residents chip in because it's that beneficial to them (even without the cooperation of the rest); one resident pays for it all because it's that beneficial to him; a private company comes in and builds the road then charges a toll; a private company comes in, builds the road, and then only paves driveways up to those properties that pay a due; all or most of the residents are members of a HOA or similar organization and regularly pay dues, so the HOA takes the responsibility of creating and maintaining the road; something not listed here that a clever entrepreneur came up with, because entrepreneurs are always coming up with business models and solutions that others can't even fathom.
mickanomics:B) Would they let big heavy lorries drive down their road?
B) Would they let big heavy lorries drive down their road?
Let me call these hypothetical people and see. Seriously, does it matter? If big trucks can't drive down their road, tough shit, because it's theirs. They can find another, or the owners of the road might realize that they're losing a bunch of business because of such a restriction.
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?
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?
Probably horribly, and rightly so. Even under government, nobody gets roads "for free." The cost is just spread evenly across everyone in the form of taxes and inflation. It's possible, as demonstrated by some possible solutions that I listed above, that they wouldn't even get access to the road without paying. If you think it's more just for everyone to pay for all roads, regardless of their usage, as opposed to the users and beneficiaries of a road paying for its upkeep, then we shouldn't even bother having this discussion, because you've already made up your mind.
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.
Snowflake: mickanomics:What is the difference between a landlord "acting on your behalf" and a government? Because the landlord legitimately retains ownership (or partial ownership) of the residential area, and his residents have entered into a voluntary contract with him.
Out of all the answers I've heard in this most recent episode on this thread, snowflake's observation that the problems are "solved" through common landlords and contracts rings the most true. However I believe that common landlords and contracts have almost the exact set of problems (in the long term) as governments for reasons discussed much earlier in this thread. So to save us all from going round in circles I shall make this my last comment in this thread unless someone posts something here which covers genuinely new territory.
Rather than taking our word for it and cherry picking which response sounds most pleasing to your ear why not read up on the subject? 22 pages on this thread you were willing to invest time into, why not invest time into a good book instead?