Considering you’ve said that your socialist organizations, clubs, companies, etc. are all voluntary, it’s all fair. You are in favor of getting rid of the current coercive system of taxation, correct? I don’t know why, but that question seems to linger…
Well if global warming represents an injustice, then I put it to any libertarian system to find an answer. If it didn’t represent an injustice, then perhaps transaction costs for “solving” it would be prohibitive. The claim that communities should work towards providing public goods doesn’t commit me to the position that they’ll be perfectly capable of doing so. I’m not sure I understand how your objection is supposed to work.
Two objections. First - there’s no such thing as public goods, except in the mind of statists, of course
Second, if global warming existed, then as it names implies, it would call for global solutions. But your system is ‘community’ based - whatever that means. How do you plan to get the consent of 6000 million people ?
Yeah that makes sense. A voluntarily funded government wouldn’t bother me in the least if anyone was free to leave. I guess some would say this makes me not a libertarian, but if I am not a libertarian what am I? A fascist? A socialist? I don’t think so.
I don’t think the LTV is a necessary element of it anyway. You seem to be some sort of voluntaryist who believes in non-profit jointly-owned organizations providing certain services, which is compatible with market anarchism. Personally, I’d rather see most of these functions carried out by firms, with non-profits only handling charity and the like.
Juan, public goods do exist, and not only in the minds of statists. If you don’t like the term “public,” feel free to replace it with something else. The point is that the phenomenon which people are talking about when they use the term “public good” does exist, and is perfectly consistent with non-statist thinking. Are you suggesting that there is no such phenomenon as free-riding?
Solid Choke, don’t let yourself be fooled by closet Objectivists. Your conception of an ideal society is perfectly consistent with libertarian principles.
Jon, the reason I’m uncomfortable with firms is that I would want an ownership stake in my government, and that terminology carries certain implications about the independence of the governing agency’s decision-making. I would want to have a hand in determining policies, rather than just a contract saying what policies are off limits. The distinction doesn’t end up being that significant, because firms could be set up in a way that would capture my ideas, and if you like your terminology, I don’t think there’s anything incompatible with my position.
No it doesn’t. It’s just the typical ivory-tower view of ‘democracy’’ and is a complete negation of the operation of the free-market. In a free-market ‘socially desireable’ programs and ends are discovered by private enterprise, wich just happens to be the only way that really works.
If I say there are no public goods I’m also saying there are no free-riders.
Juan, I think it’s fair to say that you have no idea what you’re talking about, and don’t understand the doctrine you’re espousing at all. If you aren’t intentionally being a jerk, I ask that you at least do me the favor of telling me where you got the idea that unfettered free-markets don’t allow individuals to cooperate to achieve their goals, and that individuals never take advantage of others providing non-excludable goods.
Actually I free-ride quite a bit. I enjoy beautiful achitecture and I get a huge benefit when a new company builts a new skyscraper downtown. I didn’t pay a cent for my viewing of the building. All of the cost was paid for by the corporation, but I gain utility from it none-the-less.
Block’s argument is that the mere fact of free-riding doesn’t mean that society should intervene. It doesn’t follow that free-riding can’t produce sub-optimal outcomes, and that voluntary cooperation can’t produce better outcomes. It especially doesn’t follow that free-riding doesn’t exist, or that public goods don’t exist. So again, where did you get that idea?
Sub-optimal outcomes from whose point of view ? How do you know that something is a sub-optimal outcome ? What does sub-optimal mean in the first place ?
Where did I say anything against voluntary cooperation ? I’m saying that your idea that a ‘community’ can do economic planning by unanimous consent is just a fantasy. A socialist fantasy.
Free-riding is a concept that makes no sense, except as justification for state-intervention. Almost anything can be regarded as ‘free-riding’ - wich is Block’s point.
The private supply of ‘public goods’ in 19th century Britain.
Sub-optimal in the Buchananite sense, where all parties involved agree that a preferable outcome could be achieved through cooperation.
I don’t see why it has to be a socialist fantasy. A number of anarcho-capitalists rely heavily on the idea of gated communities and voluntary governance as examples of how public goods would be provided in a free society. See, for example, David Beito’s, Peter Gordon’s, and Alexander Tabarrok’s book, The Voluntary City: Choice, Community, and Civil Society. What I’m arguing is no different, but on a larger scale which I think better reflects the kind of society which I would want to live in.
Block’s point is that free-riding does not mean that something needs to be done. You’re engaging in fallacious reasoning if you think that his argument entails anything that’s problematic for my argument. I never suggested that all public goods needed to be supplied collectively, or that free-riding is always a problem. I said that in some cases, free-riding could bring about consequences which would lead people to collectively provide the public good.
I didn’t answer how my “system” would deal with global warming because I don’t know how it would deal with it. I put it to you to tell me how any system would deal with it while properly respecting anyone’s rights. I have no idea.
I have a big problem with the Lockean way of thinking in that it attemtps to universally predict human action (although It didn’t seem to me that you were going as far to make the claim that because a state-like business would be desired by “most” it should naturally be imposed). Let the market determine the demand for “state” and defense and not your subjective valuation on what one’s priorities or necessities should be.
I only spoke of the community I would want to live in. If you don’t agree with my ideal, I would hope that you would find some like-minded people and form a community of your own. I don’t see why there’s anything wrong with me wanting to live in a community that reflects my own values. I’m not taking a Lockean stance here. Membership in communities should be explicitly voluntary; I’ve said from the beginning that I reject the idea of sovereignty.