Nice point of view. But you still have not answered me on why would any capitalist voluntary build a park for someone else.
The same reason grocery stores build parking lots that even non-customers use. Because it attracts people to their business and is more convenient than charging tolls for everyone.
Beyond that, even if it were true that no capitalist would ever build a park: so what? Why do you think other people ought to be forced to subsidize your pet hobbies. I personally like skyscrapers and oil refinery. I’ll expect a check in the mail next month so you can support my petty whims.
‘The public’ does not exist. And who cares if I am ‘in the minority’? Why should some herd of tasteless boobs overrule my preferences? It’s bad enough that they do it in the market, I’m not about to tolerate them doing it at gunpoint.
hahaha MaikU. I have read that book and also I have listened to many of the podcasts at the mises institute. It is the Mises instittude that invigorate my interest in economics as well as history and I really benefited intellectually from mises the actual man as well as everyone who made the Mises Institude a reality. But my father actually challanged me with this question. He said that projects that may not be profitable in the short term but may be beneficial to man kind in the long run will definitely not be undertaken by the entrepeuners but the government may actually handle those projects since they need the votes of the people. A park will definitely benefit many people but at the same time those people are not willing to put their money into constructing the park. I am just using this as an example.What I am saying is that there are many things that would have not materialized if not for the government rite?
James, how do you explain then that there are people who are willing to sacrifice their life for their country, or sacrifice their life for their love ones. How do you explain why some people love their wife more then their parents whereelse some people love their parents more then their wifes. Why do some talented people spend all of their life pursuing something that may not benefit him materialistically. There is certainly more to life then just materialism.
He said that projects that may not be profitable in the short term but may be beneficial to man kind in the long run will definitely not be undertaken by the entrepeuners but the government may actually handle those projects since they need the votes of the people. A park will definitely benefit many people but at the same time those people are not willing to put their money into constructing the park.
If the people aren’t willing to put money into the park, then they really don’t value the park that much.
However, I think there’s a problem with your statement (or your father’s statement, if you’re just transferring his concerns) in that you say it “definitely will not be undertaken by entrepenuers”. I think real world examples prove this simply to be false. If people like parks, they will attempt to build and maintain one should the opportunity arise.
When talking about general human action, you need to chuck out the general definition of “entreprenuer” and “profit”. An “entreprenuer” doesn’t have to be a small buisness owner or “capitalist-in-a-top-hat” stereotype. It can be a guy buying a taxi to make a living providing transportation service for people. It can also be a group of people getting together and building a park for public use. To park can “turn a profit” by turning an unused, vacant, or derilect peice of property into a useful one that provides recreation or pleasing aesthetics for it’s users. If the users value “A park” higher than the labor, time, materials, and land used to make the park, then you’ve made a “profit”.
You can also continue to derive revenue from such a place without setting up a stereotypical “ticket booth” or “toll-gate” charging system. Think about advertising on park benches or fences, or rights to sell concessions or food in stands or carts on the property. There are multiple ways of getting revenue from a “public good” such as a park or road without directly charging the users. However, if the park generates no revenue going forward, and requires constant maintainence, then it will operate at a loss and become like a consumer good instead of a capital good. This isn’t a bad thing, it just means that the operators and users have to be able to afford that loss in order to continue to enjoy the park.
Yes. If a good or service wouldn’t have been purchased in the free market, it is an inefficient allocation of societies resources. You may want parks, but poor people rather want food. When we have enough food, then people will want to pay for parks. Everybody thinks the market should distorted to fit our preferences. Thinking we know better than the market is especially dangerous when complacent rich kids impose what they think less fortunate people need.
State-funded scientific research actually crowds out private research. It actually reduces human knowledge.
And what is worse than to get the state to impose that humanity should spend it’s resources on “knowledge” rather than to feed and clothe people? At least Hitler didn’t pretend to do good.
Yes, there may be some. On the other hand… who knows for sure? Nobody tried free market economy (I mean truly stateless society where people understand the difference between agression and defense aka NAP). Maybe it would produce much more benefit to people that they couldn’t ever imagine. We are stuck at individual level. It it’s bad for someone, then society will only get worse in a long run, we see it now. Well, that’s my belief. So majority’s opinion is poor justification for such projects you mentioned. It’s like utopian utalitarianism.
Another problem is that you think that government does it better than private institutions. Imagine if government decided what size of the shoes people should wear and regulated everything in the production. People would vote what size of shoes should be the average and these shoes would be given to all people to wear (I need not to mention that there is no choice about it. You either do what gov says or you go to jail). So what happens to people with super small foot or extra large ones? They would feel very uncomfortable to say the least.
I think, man kind is term that has no meaning in economics. Man kind doesn’t think. Man kind doesn’t make decision. Man kind doesn’t suffer and is not responsible for bad decisions. It’s very overused concept (like society) and is only “useful” in political propaganda.
My final point: And since WHEN government cares about the long term effects? It never DOES. That’s the principle of modern democracy. We see it everyday with massive crisis, depression etc. etc. You elect people for a few years into the office to make some money and to be on television. That’s about it. They do not care about long term effects at all, because they are not using their own money. They do not hold such responsibility that a private person would. They are using STOLEN goods. That’s the biggest flaw in your father’s argument. But first you have to show him how extremely inefficient government is otherwise he won’t believe you.
“how do you explain then that there are people who are willing to sacrifice their life for their country, or sacrifice their life for their love ones. How do you explain why some people love their wife more then their parents whereelse some people love their parents more then their wifes. Why do some talented people spend all of their life pursuing something that may not benefit him materialistically. There is certainly more to life then just materialism.”
Somebody hasn’t read much AE - this is dealt with in Menger!! When Austrians talk of ‘value’, they mean a utility that is purely subjective; when they talk of ‘profit’ they are talking of ‘psychic profit’ that leaves one in a state of lesser uneasiness than before - its relation to material goods does not necessarily exist.
As for parks, are you really trying to argue fiant horti, et pereat mundus (‘let there be parks, though the world perish’)?
What does society gain by investing scarce resources into that which they will never use or find useful? Your not going to solve world hunger by throwing natural resources down the drain.
James, how do you explain then that there are people who are willing to sacrifice their life for their country,
You mean people are willing to die for nonsensical magical thinking that the State uses to cloak its militaristic ambitions? Well, there’s a sucker born every minute.
or sacrifice their life for their love ones. How do you explain why some people love their wife more then their parents whereelse some people love their parents more then their wifes. Why do some talented people spend all of their life pursuing something that may not benefit him materialistically. There is certainly more to life then just materialism.
You have no meaningful definition of ‘materialism’. All human action has to do with scarce resources. Preferring playing piano for fun to making millions as a stock broker is an allocation of scarce material resources, including time, to more highly valued ends. All human action is economic. Everything.
