Public goods theory states that non-rivalrous and non-excludable goods (e.g. law) will be underproduced on a free market. In order to correct this underproduction, the government must step in and coerce free riders into paying, thus assuring adequate funding for the public good.
The consent theory of political obligation says that citizens' duty to obey the law and the government's authority are derived from the voluntary agreement of the citizens to be ruled by the government.
One of these theories must be wrong:
If public goods theory is true, then consent theory must be false — if the government coerces free riders, then they cannot consent.
If consent theory is true, then public goods theory must be false — if people fund government voluntarily, then there is no free rider problem.
Given this dilemma, I think statists will abandon consent theory, seeing as it's already in the gutter.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
One is economic, the other is political, they cannot contradict.
Missing premise is missing.
Good post. You forgot the 3rd option. Both are wrong. Public Goods theory is wrong, because the free riders are not the ones coerced. And consent theory, well... you know.
Sage:Given this dilemma, I think statists will abandon consent theory, seeing as it's already in the gutter.
Why would statists abandon being irrational? It is what defines them.
The consentual government idea is the last fallacy that the last statist on Earth will give up.
But who will build the roads?
That is often called a free rider problem, it's not true of course, in fact the first roads in America designed for automobiles were Private, See the Long Island Motor Parkway
On Facebook i was debating a hardcore statist, who completely denied that any private roads ever existed, it was funny even after i was the first to tell him about private roads in America. Statist will freak out, and deny reality when it stares them in the face.
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
liberty student:You forgot the 3rd option. Both are wrong.
Right. I think public goods theory is largely false; there is a collective action problem, but it isn't insurmountable.
Caley McKibbin:The consentual government idea is the last fallacy that the last statist on Earth will give up.
It's true that the myth that "government derives it's just powers from the consent of the governed" is very widespread, but very few political philosophers actually support consent theory. Most follow some other theory, e.g. gratitude, fairness, association, natural duty.
Don't forget "libertarian paternalism".
Wasn't Barnett trying to bypass the consent theory in Restoring?
Right, essentially the game theoretic argument with regards to interaction says that for any individual it is always in their interest to defect and as such defense and contract enforcement is a public good. The problem is that this applies to the state to, for any group of individuals it will still be in their interest to coerce and not to cooperate.
So essentially the state itself a public good that can't be established by cooperation.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton:essentially the game theoretic argument with regards to interaction says that for any individual it is always in their interest to defect
nonsense. maybe in one-shot prisoner dilemmas.
GilesStratton:for any group of individuals it will still be in their interest to coerce and not to cooperate.
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
fezwhatley: But who will build the roads? That is often called a free rider problem, it's not true of course, in fact the first roads in America designed for automobiles were Private, See the Long Island Motor Parkway On Facebook i was debating a hardcore statist, who completely denied that any private roads ever existed, it was funny even after i was the first to tell him about private roads in America. Statist will freak out, and deny reality when it stares them in the face.
Very cool
Found this too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_highway#Europe
it is interesting how you described law as a public service. food for thought there. But i do not think that the two theories are mutually exclusive.
Sage:The consent theory of political obligation says that citizens' duty to obey the law and the government's authority are derived from the voluntary agreement of the citizens to be ruled by the government.
it is important to understand what kind of law and what kind of government the consent theory proposes. from the way you've described the consent theory it only says that there is some form of government and some form of law but it is not defined. one possibility may be a liberal state. in a liberal state the law only concern itself with protecting individual's personal private sphere (stopping coercion, theft etc.) and facilitating trade and transactions (enforcement of contracts etc.).
it is interesting to note that for all its faults the western world is in fact to a large degree liberal no matter how much the socialists (both from the left and right) try to make it otherwise.
now, in a liberal state there exists a market place. because of the nature of the state this market is fairly free. this means many buyers, sellers, good amount of information and easy entry and exit to and from the market. However in reality this market is not perfect. there are some faults, or market failures. one of these market failures is to do with provision of certain goods like public goods. i am sure all of you are aware of prisoner's dilemma and its application to public goods.
one can now see that public goods theory exists within the framework set up by consent theory.
nirgrahamUK:nonsense. maybe in one-shot prisoner dilemmas
That's actually what I meant to write, thank you.
spetsnaz:from the way you've described the consent theory it only says that there is some form of government and some form of law but it is not defined. one possibility may be a liberal state.
Okay, so you're saying that consent theory is true, and that people fund government voluntarily. From this it follows that there is no free rider problem, since people are voluntarily funding the public good of law. Hence government is unnecessary and the adjudication of disputes and the production of security can be provided on the market.
The original dilemma still stands.
scineram:Wasn't Barnett trying to bypass the consent theory in Restoring?
I haven't read Restoring, but I just read his exchange with Huebert in the JLS and I'm planning on reading his article "Constitutional Legitimacy," where he discusses this in detail. Basically, he says that unanimous consent is impractical, but that legal systems can be legitimized if they have procedural assurances that laws are not unjust.
From my limited understanding, he draws a distinction between justification and legitimacy, and his procedural account is only used to legitimize, not justify, the government. But it seems to me that moral duties must be justified, and not merely "legitimized."
I'll post a thread after I've read the article.
Sage:Okay, so you're saying that consent theory is true, and that people fund government voluntarily. From this it follows that there is no free rider problem, since people are voluntarily funding the public good of law. Hence government is unnecessary and the adjudication of disputes and the production of security can be provided on the market.
it is utopian to assume that people when they voluntarily join a organisation will always without exception adhere to all its rules especially when their direct interests are clearly at stake. human conduct is not discrete but continuous. people don't either follow rules or not follow rules, there is a continuum in between the extremes.
what i was talking about specifically was that when people voluntarily join a liberal state the adhere to most of laws most of the time. the problem may arise however when the laws do not say anything about public goods, like street lighting etc. which means that generally public goods and the market failures associated with it can exist in a voluntarily set up state.
what you are talking about is thinking of law as the only public good (or service) in question. i apologise for misunderstanding. yes, theoretically people all might voluntarily and conscientiously form law to live by. if they are perfectly rational and have perfect information there will be no free riding problem vis-a-vis law. however purely on the theoretical basis if people are voluntarily submitting to law, law is still a public service by definition. one cannot exclude people from enjoying it, and its amount is not reduced in its consumption. it just so happens that because in this imaginary world people are perfectly rational and have perfect information there is no free rider problem and hence there is no need to enforce anything. to be honest if people are perfectly rational and have perfect information they do not need to set up a law system. it would be perfectly apparent to them what is in their interest is generally in the interest of the others. such perfect people could peacefully live together in an anarchy.
as i have mentioned before human conduct is not discrete but people may choose to mix and match their actions on a continuum to suit their needs. reality is that live is complex and hard to understand so there is no perfect information. one must remember is that people are irrational and are driven by their passions as much as by their weak reasoning skills. even if people do join together voluntarily to form a law their is short term incentive to cheat hence the free rider problem. the rest of the people who are not cheating will wish to prevent this and hence they will take it upon themselves to punish the law breakers.
look at this forum as an example. we all voluntarily joined but we still have forum moderators who punish those who all of s sudden choose not to follow the rules.
thus in theory there is a contradiction, in practice there is no contradiction.
one must remember is that people are irrational and are driven by their passions as much as by their weak reasoning skills.
Translation: people do things I don't personally approve of.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus: one must remember is that people are irrational and are driven by their passions as much as by their weak reasoning skills. Translation: people do things I don't personally approve of.
no, that is not the translation. what i meant by irrationality is that people might not do that which is best for them. they may not be able to make perfect calculations. one of the main arguments against socialism is that no one is perfectly rational and hence it is impossible to calculate everything for everyone hence central planning will fail. the foundation of liberalism is that people are irrational and are not driven by calculation.
it is irrelevant of what i think of others. freedom of thought is probably the most fundamental expression of liberty. i am free to do so and others are free to do so too. it only becomes a problem when people try to tell others what they should and should not do!!!
No, that is the translation. I really don't know where you're getting the rest from. Certainly not Mises... and btw, not being "perfectly rational" =/= being irrational.
GilesStratton: So essentially the state itself a public good that can't be established by cooperation.
Except that in the absence of a true Ubermensch the state requires cooperation to create itself to and to continue its running. Thus the existence of the state refutes the public goods argument entirely.
I'm indebted to Don Lavoie on this point. He mustn't have been on one of his trips that day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Jon Irenicus:I really don't know where you're getting the rest from. Certainly not Mises
Haeyk
spetsnaz:it is utopian to assume that people when they voluntarily join a organisation will always without exception adhere to all its rules especially when their direct interests are clearly at stake.
Do you understand what consent theory requires for a government to be voluntary? Consent must be unanimous, unambiguous, and ongoing. This means that everyone must agree to every law, and that every individual must have a right of secession.
By admitting that unanimous consent is utopian, you are thereby admitting to be trapped in the dilemma: consent theory must be false for a free rider problem to exist.
spetsnaz:if they are perfectly rational and have perfect information there will be no free riding problem vis-a-vis law.
Red herring. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I'm not intimately familiar with Hayek's argument, but it basically amounts to the conclusion that social engineering does not work and that constructivism is false. One need not say a thing about 'rationality' to obtain this conclusion though. It is more so an attack on scientistic arrogance than a presumption against letting people do as they wish without hindrance by the state.
Jon Irenicus:It is more so an attack on scientistic arrogance
partly this arrogance is based on the fact that social scientists are rational enough to foresee every eventuality and take all into account. this arrogance also is partly based on thinking of people as mathematical units in an economic model.
read Hayek's "the counter revolution of science", he talks about this topic in that book.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:Wasn't he willing to murder anyone
no i am afraid he never did anything you describe. hayek was very much against ideas of moral relativism (social constructivism). unlike anarchists, liberal thinkers want peace and to preserve people's freedom, including freedom to live. hayek and von mises greatly admired each other. hayek carried on von mises' economic and political work.
partly this arrogance is based on the fact that social scientists are rational enough to foresee every eventuality and take all into account. this arrogance also is partly based on thinking of people as mathematical units in an economic model. read Hayek's "the counter revolution of science", he talks about this topic in that book.
Right, so it has nothing to do with people being "irrational" but rather the presumption of excessive knowledge.
yes, i think maybe i phrased my reply badly.