David D Friedman failed me for the first time

I appreciate the insights.  Do you have any more book recommendations?

Who is seriously surprised that Friedman is really a minarchist after all?  It's just a classic case of using shill tactics to change the views of opponents.  His comment of a similar nature here was disturbing: https://mises.org/Community/forums/t/18659.aspx?PageIndex=4  This is a Chicago economist moonlighting as a Molinarian on defense to get an audience with people that would otherwise not be interested.

Sieben:

Err, the only thing Caley did in the other thread was to show that public goods have a private component to them, and that individuals can profit from providing the public good. This says nothing about the actual group dynamic because people don't simply seek out profit, they are profit maximizing, which is why the free rider option is so attractive.

He also seems to forget that I'm actually advocating a rational solution to the problem... its the "just logistics" he's talking about, which is actually the whole subject of debate - under which conditions are the logistics solvable.

I might be dense, but you could reformulate this into an actual argument against Caley's position?    Because IMO, he points out a flaw which should have been obvious in DF's reasoning, and which I am somewhat ashamed I did not spot myself.

That, and it seems like your posts on supposed free rider problems come off more as you trying to find a theory about a hole than a hole in a theory .

Caley McKibbin:

Who is seriously surprised that Friedman is really a minarchist after all?  It's just a classic case of using shill tactics to change the views of opponents.  His comment of a similar nature here was disturbing: https://mises.org/Community/forums/t/18659.aspx?PageIndex=4  This is a Chicago economist moonlighting as a Molinarian on defense to get an audience with people that would otherwise not be interested.

Enough with the ad homs please.

Minarchist? The guy wrote a book advocating anarcho-capitalism, maybe you've heard of it?

http://www.amazon.com/Machinery-Freedom-Guide-Radical-Capitalism/dp/0812690699

It's pretty good. I recommend it.

Enough with the deceptions, too.

Minarchist? The guy wrote a book advocating anarcho-capitalism, maybe you've heard of it?

I thought the point here was that he makes a minarchist argument.  Otherwise I don't see what the OP is about.

Caley McKibbin:

Enough with the deceptions, too.

Stop trying to judge intent.  You can't know intent.  Judge action instead.

Liberty Student:

I might be dense, but you could reformulate this into an actual argument against Caley's position?    Because IMO, he points out a flaw which should have been obvious in DF's reasoning, and which I am somewhat ashamed I did not spot myself.

Caley's position is that it is possible for individuals to profit from supporting a public good even if no one else does. This is possible but irrelevant, because individuals choose the *most* profitable option, which is getting the good and not paying for it. Caley and I both think this problem is solvable, but Caley just thinks you can brute force it while I think you need a web of contracts.

Liberty student:

That, and it seems like your posts on supposed free rider problems come off more as you trying to find a theory about a hole than a hole in a theory .

Well, I try to link it back to the assumption that people are narrowly self interested. As others have pointed out, its not always an accurate assumption, but I'm not interested in abandoning it because this represents a realistic worst case scenario.

I don't even know what you are talking about.  You are not summarizing my points accurately at all.  My analysis of the meteor scenario is specific.  It has nothing to do with any "position".  Although it probably helps somehow that I don't use neo-classical thinking.  [ DELETED -William]

...because individuals choose the *most* profitable option, which is getting the good and not paying for it.

I consider that an assumption of value. If that were the case, then people wouldn't fund hte public good. If it's not the case, then people might fund it. I still fail to see what the problem is.

There is the claim that if we presuppose people's values, and they all want to be a free rider above all else, then they won't fund the public good. This is the worst-case scenario for the realization of the public good. But this is just within the context of a game.

We can always come up with "worst case scenarios"... for example: everyone gets asked to fund a public good. Everyone goes on a rampage and kills each other. That is another worst-case scenario. Is this also the free rider problem?

I'm just wondering... is the free rider problem relevant outside of game theory? I don't think it has any application outside the confines of it. I follow praxeology. People do what they believe at the time will accrue them the most psychic profit. That may be in paying into the public good, or not paying into the public good. Putting people in a vaccuum and presupposing values doesn't create a scenario that reflects reality. It shows a game. And it's been solved.

Giant Joe:

...because individuals choose the *most* profitable option, which is getting the good and not paying for it.

I consider that an assumption of value. If that were the case, then people wouldn't fund hte public good. If it's not the case, then people might fund it. I still fail to see what the problem is.

Its just an assumption about profit maximization, which isn't unreasonable. Its not on the same level as assuming people like chocolate ice cream or would murder everyone. It is particularly reasonable if you think large-scale public goods would be provided by intermediaries (like local defense assns, or apt complexes), which will basically have to be profit maximizing.

Sieben:

Its just an assumption about profit maximization, which isn't unreasonable.

What is profit?

Liberty Student:

What is profit?

Sorry. Monetary profit is revenues-expenses. "Profit" more generally is just benefit. It could be subjective/psychic whatever...

@ Conza88'

Thank you for that info, very interesting.  I always thought Mises was a minarchist but from the evidence you've shown "philosophical anarchist" sounds much more appropriate.  Also, I have heard the label "geoanarchist" used to describe Albert J. Nock and Frank Chodorov because of their strong beliefs in the views of Henry George.

No worries. :)

"Albert J. Nock and Frank Chodorov because of their strong beliefs in the views of Henry George."

Ha, single tax... of course!