Well how are we going to define public property? Is it a series of owners who come together, pool their resources and establish an area in which the public is free to frequent on their own accord? Perhaps something like a nature hiking trail, and not expect coerced compensation for doing such a thing? Donations are acceptable since they are voluntary. If that is your definition of public property then I agree that public property can exist. However, if it is property that is ambiguously owned by everyone and no one then I don’t believe in such a thing.
You misread my statement. The supposed ‘free-rider’ problem is a fictional concept.
You misread what I said:
But weren’t you recently stating that there are some things that the market cannot provide yet the state can?
No, the free-rider problem is a real concept in the respect that whenever an individual, or firm does not need to pay for a certain cost, then they are “free-riders”, and others, who might not even have had the benefits of will eventually have to sustain those costs. To say that the free-rider problem is a fictional concept would mean that every producer shoulders every single cost involved of the benefits they recieve, but this is not true in two ways: 1. one can force the costs upon others, an example of this would be G.E. dumping PCBs into the Hudson river, and 2. one can recieve the benefits of a good without paying any costs for it, an example of this would be lighthouses. For many this results in defining certain goods as “public goods”, “club goods”, or “common-pool resources”, but I won’t go into those details, or even defend the practice; nevertheless, the free-rider problem is cannot be denied, but denying its status as a true “problem” is a completely other story.
No, it’s not. Now, I don’t wish to get into this but there are clearly goods which possess various features that make them, to some extent or another, public goods. This includes goods like security that don’t allow for excludibility and for which non rivalrous consumption is possible. Now, I don’t believe there is a hard and fast distinction between public goods and non public goods. I do believe, however, that some goods and services that exhibit tendencies that make traditional provision more difficult due to reasons such as free riders. Now, don’t get me wrong, I think that the voluntary actions of individuals can overcome these problems in various ways. But to deny that free riding exists is absurd.
It was a joke, and quite disturbingly it came very close to the truth.
Not really. Being responsible implies that one should hesitate to “stake out” a position, especially one of such great importance as the one at hand. Namely the legitimacy of the state.
I interpreted Anarchist Cain as denying the versimilitude of the free-rider ‘problem’ , rather than a denial of that of ‘free-ridership’
certainly one can theoretically construct free-rider examples. and they can be prominent in real life. (thank you illegitimate state
but its really not a ‘problem’ for laissez faire any more than there is a ‘necessity of division of labour problem’ or ‘provision of medium for facilitating indirect exchange problem’
again its one of those semantic breaks. people read ‘problem’ and its a word with multiple definitions (and implications) best determined by context, but we are communicating on forums a few lines at a time and there is a lack of contextualising.
I decided to quit physics for the same reason! A professor asked me to describe a certain property of waves and when I could not identify the right description from the wrong description, I quit.
nirgrahamUK, thanks for your input, it clarified the dispute between Anarchist Cain and myself. I do agree that the disagreement probably hinged on the use of the word “problem”, I’d agree with you that perhaps I should have clarified. So I’ll offer such a clarification now, I believe that “free-ridership” as you called it may well pose problems to what Don Boudreaux calls “arm length exchange” but not necessarily for other voluntary arrangements.
On the same token I’d argue that you don’t have an adequate explanation for what is right and wrong, as demonstrated elsewhere. However, I don’t believe your criticism hits home, I can tell what is right and wrong, or I believe I can. However, I’m not so sure that I can apply my understanding of right and wrong all the time, much less to complex arrangements such as the state. No doubt you see this as a flaw and will berate me for it, but I believe my tentative approach to this situation is superior to your approach which involves rushing head first into issue that are perhaps more complex than you understand. I simply don’t believe my current knowledge is sufficient to make such categorical claims such as “the state is evil”.
You’d have an argument along these lines, if you hadn’t already shattered your credibility on this topic by attacking people who do understand the state versus the market, instead of resorting to an argument based on ignorance.
But, you’ve already turtled on the topic, and just because you now claim ignorance, doesn’t make the baseline for the rest of us so low.
You’d be best off going back to claiming specific knowledge than claiming selective ignorance. Your credibility is at an all time low, and playing dumb or arguing with me isn’t going to help you make a recovery.
LibertyStudent, by now I’ve figured that the only response that would satisfy you would have to go along the lines of “OK guys I’m not a radical Rothbardian/ Hoppean/ Blockean/ Rockwellian anarcho capitalist, I sincerely hate the state and believe we should all secede” and so on and so forth. However, I’d hazard a guess that my understanding of the state versus the market is probably superior to yours, so the condescension isn’t really warranted.
As for ignorance, I’ll readily accept that in regards to political and ethical philosophy. Although, as demonstrated in Sterba Libertarian Critique, I don’t necessarily think that’d satisfy you either. Perhaps with the exception of GAP, I don’t think anybody here has a high of a claim to being knowledgable about political philosophy than Danny. Yet, in spite of his attempt to give you a nuanced argument in favour of his views, supported by prominent philosopher, you were still not convinced and remain hostile. So I don’t necessarily think it’s my ignorance that bothers you, so much as my disagreement does. Perhaps the baseline should be lower than it is, I don’t think all that many here have an adequate understanding of political philosophy, much less to the extent that they can hold the views they do. On these fora, humility is certainly warranted.
As for my credibility. I believe it to be intact, throughout our recent exchanges I’ve tried to remain patient and willing to resolve dispute. The latter, I no longer think is possible, but I will certainly continue trying. Moreover, I’m comfortable enough with my knowledge of economics that I’ve learnt in a relatively short space of time to continue discussing it on these fora.
Well, a consistent free-market society was firstly proposed by economist and classical liberal Gustave de Molinari in 1850. Since you are a student of ‘economic science’ maybe that’s something you ought to know.
That’s interesting. First you admit you don’t know what you are talking about. And then you praise Danny, who writes about a subject you admitted you don’t master. Maybe Danny’s credentials as a ‘scientist’ are as good as, say, Keynes’ credentials ?
Oh, it’s not that complex, really. It’s a group of thugs extorting tribute from people it claims to protect. Very simple. And if you start thinking that maybe the government has the right to make such a claim, consider the question you will beg by doing that.
It is an example that shows my point that ‘free-riders’ are ambiguous since we are all free-riders.What are you going to do? Ask for compensation from everyone?