Insane paradox of the state!

Economics Political Theory
1

Perhaps I am blinded by my excitement, but I cannot seem to find the problem in this paradox that should completely demolish the state. I found it while scanning the notes of AnCap econ professor Bryan Caplan at http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/e849/pf2.htm

Here it is:

XVI. The Paradox of Public Good Provision

A. People often appeal to the “logic of collective action” to justify corrective government policy. Public goods problems don’t “solve themselves.”

B. Problem: Isn’t monitoring the government to act in socially beneficial ways itself a public good?

C. Paradox: If citizens can voluntarily produce the public good of monitoring government, why can’t they solve other public goods problems without government? And if they can’t voluntarily solve this problem, what reason is there to expect government to improve matters?

2

Dude, there is no problem! Have you not seen this lecture?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5maguX5x8c

3

This isn’t the only paradox that destroys statism. The problem is getting people to SEE the paradox. Communication, communication, communication.

4

I would take it a step farther and say it’s “education education education”.

5

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

also

James Madison - If men were angels, no government would be necessary
Milton Friedman - And just tell me where in the world you find these angels that are going to organize society for us?

and thats not even David :wink:

Another Wal-Mart Topic...
6

The paradox is that well informed voters are public goods. Democratic elections to keep the state in check suffer from a free-rider problem. In short:

  1. The benefits of voting for a good candidate are spread across so many people that when a person makes a single well-informed vote, they receive negligible benefit.

  2. Your influence on an election result is very small.

  3. It takes a lot of effort to research a candidate’s policies properly to make an informed vote.

  4. People are socially encouraged to vote.

This is basically a public good scenario since the cost of an informed voter is beared by the individual, but the benefits are non-excludable (spread across the whole of society). So each individual makes the rational (selfish) choice and makes an uninformed vote, at the expense of the general welfare.

Basically what Caplan is saying is that the process that is supposed to solve public good problems (state intervention in the economy) itself suffers from a public good problem.

If you’re interested in hearing the long version of the argument see here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKANfuq_92U

I hope this helps.

7

Doesn’t the argument then become to subsidize education?

8

only if the education they would recieve would be sufficient to convince them a monopoly insitution which gives each citizen a vote will not serve their interests as well as a market in governmental services

9

I mean the mainstream argument :stuck_out_tongue: