How do Austrians propose to provide what are traditionally government funded public works projects? I can see how roads might work, but what about the power grid, or sewer systems?
Please direct me to some references. I did a quick search on the site and didn’t come up with anything that looked obvious. I’m new to this subject, so be gentle.
Maybe you should use the search function to find articles about private roads, privatized sewer systems, and privatized power grids.
There are plenty of articles and LvMI working papers on these subjects.
I don’t understand how sewers and power lines differ from roads. It’s not uncommong for them to be all bundled together, with the sewers and the networks running in galleries under the sidewalks.
Well, first of all, the reason why public works have to be done privately is because they are a net loss, obviously. They are provided by the g-men who will naturally always be more wasteful. Or they’ll overproduce. Or they’ll create a tragedy of the commons. Society will always lose. The government provides the resource in a socialist manner, making calculation tricky. I do believe Doctor Block has talked about how public highways create pollution by encouraging people to overuse their cars on roads and not giving other forms of transportation a fair shake. Well, that’s the way the socialist cookie crumbles.
I don’t know about you but I’ve never thought of public authorities as the pinnacle of efficency and goodness. Quite frankly, I really really dislike a lot of them. Why couldn’t private industry find a way? While no one can be sure exactly how an unhampered market will pan out by its very nature, Jim Ostrowoski has written about why they should be abolished though its not particuarly heavy on the “how” question. I hope that is of some use. I know many Austrians have written about their proverbial beef with public goods in an enjoyable fashion, but that’s not what you’re looking for, is it?
I really have no doubt the government is wasteful. I work in an industry that is heavily funded by public money. And, while I can rant against the goverment as much as I want and make many cases where the free market can do better, I can’t quite explain how the free market could provide a sewer network, or cable network (without the gov giving a local monopoly). I’m sure the answer is out there, and I’d like to find it.
The answer is that you don’t understand the difference between a property and a monopoly.
JKS, click the links that I provided.
Don’t be a troll.
What do you mean? It is precisely the answer to his confusion.
I just realized that the topic title is an oxymoron.
It also just occurred to me that all political theory is pretty much about monopolies. land monopolies, force monopolies, ideological monopolies etc. Government will always try to bring more things under the umbrella of a government regulated monopoly. A government can brook no competition, lest it is destroyed.
Not just Austrians, but libertarians in general. There’s an excellent collection of essays called The Voluntary City (parts or all of which available on Google Books) which discusses the “public goods” problem throughout history, and how they were previously provided privately; everything from police/fire to roads/sewers to the provision of law. It’s an excellent read, and since each essay is essentially a distinct work, you don’t need to read the entire “book” to answer some of the questions.
“You don’t understand” is basically calling someone an idiot. Furthermore, you don’t even answer his question. If he’s new to extreme free market thought, do you think he’ll understand your statement? Most likely not. So don’t be so confrontational to someone who politely asks questions.
Part of the problem you have explaining this is that it assumes that the current methods of distribution are the methods that a free market might’ve chosen. Instead of starting with “how can a free market provide the exact same services as government does”, you should begin by asking, “How might a free market satisfy the problem of [insert needs, here]?”
For example, there’s a great deal of work that’s sprung up in the past few years due to the Environment/Green initiative. There are sefl-sustainable houses built entirely from recycled materials in the New Mexico desert that do everything from collect, filter & recycle rainwater, to generating their own power (mostly solar, I think), irrigation, and small-scale crop production.
This example alone seems to invalidate most of the justifications for the current infrastructure which is characterized by monopoly. If you can collect enough rainwater in a place that gets 6" of rain a year, imagine what you could do in a more hospitable environment.
As far as cable/telcom is concerned, most of this stuff (all of it) is now available over the air: cell phones can replace land-lines, satellite can provide internet/cable/television. Sure, local co-operatives/communities might hardwire some things, but again, there’s no reason to presume that we need telephone poles in our backyards. 
“You don’t understand” was not my response. I answered with precisely the subject he should be looking into, property.
I never said that “you don’t understand” was your response. Obviously, there was more. By using “you don’t understand” at all, you are in effect calling him an idiot. There is no need to be confrontational or to use other trolling techniques (like being vague) on someone interested in AE and libertarianism.
was the question whether or not the free market could provide sewers or whether or not there would necessarily have to be a monopoly
Thanks for the links, Krazy. I used the search function on the site, which doesn’t seem to work well.
Stranger, I don’t really understand alot about AE (yet), that’s why I’m here.
It does seem that privitizing cities so they have to compete against each other would work. I guess the profit motive is to aqcuire and maintain utility rate payers? Like a game of Sim-City.
David Z,
Thanks for the response. The free market would find a better way if prices became too high.
Thanks for sticking up for me. I’m very new to this subject so I don’t take offense, and I gather from the links provided that this question comes up often in this forum. Google search from now on for me.
I’m very interested in liberty, and how to convey to my family, friends (and anyone who is unfortunate enough to find themselves in conversation with me after a few beers) that we are headed in the wrong direction. I can see this question coming up in defense of government, and knew you guys could enlighten me. Thanks.
I think the question is not - how can the free market provide these things? - rather it is more pragmatic: If the govt were to collapse and all public works go unfunded through a govt monopoly, how would the market compensate and not just simply create another monopoly?
The biggest problem I have with the water/sewer issue is the reasonableness of delivery. If a private company were to come in and buy the water/sewer plants then what says they are not a monopoly - there is no other way to reasonably have competition in the market as the infrastructure is owned by one.
Sure, everyone could switch to rainwater harvesting, however you and I both know that the majority of people out there would rather try and rebuild a local, taxing government than do for themselves.
And that’s what it comes down to. In order for what we want as a society to look like to work, we have to figure out how the average person who doesn’t know and doesn’t care consciously about freedom get the basic things they want about as easily as they have been in the past while having the option to not be held captive by a single monopolizer.
Also, all this works great out in the country, but a whole hell of a lot of people live in the cities - and that is where the problems would be.
Not quite.
The private owner of the plant would be profit orientated, unlike its government owner today. If another individual thought they would be able to run the plant more profitably they would seek to buy the plant from its owner, if offered price was higher then the amount of money the current owner planned on generating through operation he would sell. The difference between private property and public property is not just acedemic.
Then of course there is the fact that new competition could build new infastructure.