7 ms·

> If they are a great idea, why not persuade people to voluntarily pay for them? Because, in this specific case, the people who most need libraries can often b

> If they are a great idea, why not persuade people to voluntarily pay for them? Because, in this specific case, the people who most need libraries can often barely afford to pay for food and shelter. Libraries are such an obvious public good that I will never understand why they're not treated (both in the US and in the UK, and perhaps in other countries), as a basic and absolute necessity. [edited to add not which I left out in my rush to get my point across]

intended 15y ago
Libraries are good for the majority of people who can't afford them. People who have the money to support them, don't need them. By the time there are enough sufferers, and discontented others who create an externality where libraries are useful, the solution for those who can afford it is personal protection. So as a result, libraries wont get funded.
xenophanes 15y ago
I meant persuade people with money to pay for them. You value them. Why don't you pay something voluntarily? And a thousand other yous? Why doesn't Bill Gates throw some money at it if it's a super efficient use of resources? He will, and many other non-poor people will, if they are persuaded it's a better use of their resources than Greenpeace, Oxfam, malaria medicine for Africa, clean water for Africa, and so on. If such people can't be persuaded of this -- that it's an efficient use of resources -- then that's no time to send the tax man to take their money for this purpose and divert it away from the purposes they judge to be more important.
- urbanjunkie 15y ago
  @xenophanes - see philwelch's response below, which sums up why there's is a need for an agency to do things in the long term interests of society that individual or corporate entities probably (hah - definitely) wouldn't.
- justincormack 15y ago
  Historically that was how most of the libraries around where I live (London) were created, funded by Carnegie and Passmore Edwards and others.
- rbarooah 15y ago
  By this argument, it sounds as though you are saying that the rich are inherently better at allocating resources for the public good than anyone else. This is an appeal to wealth fallacy. It's quite possible that the wealthy might have interests that diverge significantly from the common good and the overall wealth of society. Jared Diamond's 'collapse' makes a strong case for this having occurred numerous times in history.
- leot 15y ago
  Is it really so hard for you to imagine prisoners dilemmas and tragedies of the commons? I'm willing to pay $1 for a public good if everyone else pays $1. But it is utterly irrational for me to pay voluntarily for this public good, for at least two reasons: 1) since most people won't be paying for it, if I want it I'll have to pay much more, and 2) whether or not it exists is entirely independent of my actions anyway, so why pay a thing? In order for fundamentalist libertarianism to work it will need to come up with a solution to the free-rider problem. Got one?
  - xenophanes 15y ago
    > In order for fundamentalist libertarianism to work it will need to come up with a solution to the free-rider problem. Got one? Yes: http://fallibleideas.com/public-goods http://fallibleideas.com/public-goods
    - leot 15y ago
      Any evidence that this solves it?
      - xenophanes 15y ago
        It's a philosophical argument, not an evidence-based argument. Do you have a criticism of it other than that you are an empiricist who dislikes philosophy? Do you have a rival idea which isn't refuted?
        leot 15y ago
        Philosophers use evidence all the time in support of their arguments, especially when they are making empirical claims (as you are: you are claiming that the costs of government outweigh the benefits when it comes to the provision of public goods). If you choose to not use evidence, then it is important to be far more careful and charitable than you have been. E.g., in your "simple argument" you only consider examples at the extreme (million -x benefit or 1% ROI). These are straw men -- you don't in fact deal with any kind of realistic example. For your reasoning to have been good and fair, you would have had to consider the scenario that puts your position in the worst possible light and then show that it still holds. Imagine a dam that costs $100 but provides $10,000 of benefit to 20 users. Imagine, further, that all 20 users are competing with each other for status and customers, they are all roughly equally wealthy, and that paying for the dam will be a significant expense for most of them. Even though the dam could be built by any five of the users, any user who doesn't pay will gain a comparative advantage over the others. The libertarian might propose that they collectively participate in a contract. But why should anyone agree to participate in this contract, if they know that the dam will be built irrespective of their participation, and if they will get an advantage over others by not participating? No doubt the hold-outs will claim that they can't afford to pay for it, or that they don't want it -- but this is just a negotiating strategy. Sure, setting up a government to deal with the provision of a single collective good is extremely inefficient. The issue is that there are many thousands of such public goods (and services). The empirical argument, here, is that on balance the inefficiency is worth it. It does not appear, from your essay, that you have carefully and sympathetically examined the relevant counter-positions. If you haven't already looked at it carefully, I would recommend http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-rider/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-rider/ It is interesting that free market fundamentalists seem to have trouble deciding whether their argument is an empirical or a philosophical/moral/ideological one. They will claim that libertarianism is the answer because government-based collective action is always less efficient (an empirical claim). When evidence is provided that this need not always be true, they switch to an argument of "freedom" and natural rights. When this argument is shown wanting, they then revert to their efficiency-related arguments. This flip-flop frequently works to fool many, it seems.
- vacri 15y ago
  One of the (many) flaws with libertarian dogma is the assumption that a person can be intelligently informed about every aspect that might affect them, from social effects of libraries to air quality to choosing services right down to who picks up the garbage. Building regulations? Who needs those, right? Let's just replace it by doing 'buyer beware' and making every purchaser of a property have to do an in-depth research of everything, down to what kind of metal the pipes were made out of. Volunteer charity also only works for <i>visible</i> problems. There's no need for it to go away, but to suggest it could replace (and improve on!) governmental social services is just silly. Everyone gave money to Katrina funds... when it happened. What percentage of the original donators were still donating 6 months later? 12 months? 24 months? Same question for Haiti. Private charity is good for the initial burst for visible causes, but it sucks for ongoing support on the grand scale.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
yummyfajitas 15y ago
Libraries are a private good, not a public good. Since so many people seem to be getting confused on this point, I'll just post these articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_good The fact that their customers are broke (but not so broke they can't afford cable TV) doesn't change this.
- urbanjunkie 15y ago
  And you know they can afford cable tv how, exactly? There are apparently 1.5 million homeless children in the US. Are they watching cable tv? But it's ok - you can link to the correct definition of public vs private good. I'm actually disgusted by your attitude.
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    And you know they can afford cable tv how, exactly? Because the US government did a survey measured this. I link to the raw data in a separate post on this thread, currently downmodded for reasons unknown. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3607475 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3607475
    - urbanjunkie 15y ago
      I think it's pretty obvious why you're being down-modded. It's what happens when you set up your own strawman and then demolish it.
- pessimizer 15y ago
  Do you have any information about the cable TV subscription rates of the poor, or are you just trotting out bullshit theories of poverty as lack of impulse control and proper priority setting that were already dusty when Reagan took office? edit: That is definitely information. Appreciate the references (that were given as a reply to the other comment.) Will look at them later to see if they answer the question that came to mind as I was reading your numbers; what's the churn? How many people were in that 14% during any particular period? For example, if I did a survey during a famine to find out how many people had a meal that day, and found out 2/3s had, it would be incorrect to say that only 1/3 of people had been effected.
tomjen3 15y ago
If they can't afford to pay for them, they should provide more value to society and not, egoistically, expect to extract more than they put in.

intended 15y ago

Libraries are good for the majority of people who can't afford them. People who have the money to support them, don't need them. By the time there are enough sufferers, and discontented others who create an externality where libraries are useful, the solution for those who can afford it is personal protection. So as a result, libraries wont get funded.

xenophanes 15y ago

I meant persuade people with money to pay for them. You value them. Why don't you pay something voluntarily? And a thousand other yous? Why doesn't Bill Gates throw some money at it if it's a super efficient use of resources? He will, and many other non-poor people will, if they are persuaded it's a better use of their resources than Greenpeace, Oxfam, malaria medicine for Africa, clean water for Africa, and so on. If such people can't be persuaded of this -- that it's an efficient use of resources -- then that's no time to send the tax man to take their money for this purpose and divert it away from the purposes they judge to be more important.

urbanjunkie 15y ago
@xenophanes - see philwelch's response below, which sums up why there's is a need for an agency to do things in the long term interests of society that individual or corporate entities probably (hah - definitely) wouldn't.
justincormack 15y ago
Historically that was how most of the libraries around where I live (London) were created, funded by Carnegie and Passmore Edwards and others.
rbarooah 15y ago
By this argument, it sounds as though you are saying that the rich are inherently better at allocating resources for the public good than anyone else. This is an appeal to wealth fallacy. It's quite possible that the wealthy might have interests that diverge significantly from the common good and the overall wealth of society. Jared Diamond's 'collapse' makes a strong case for this having occurred numerous times in history.
leot 15y ago
Is it really so hard for you to imagine prisoners dilemmas and tragedies of the commons? I'm willing to pay $1 for a public good if everyone else pays $1. But it is utterly irrational for me to pay voluntarily for this public good, for at least two reasons: 1) since most people won't be paying for it, if I want it I'll have to pay much more, and 2) whether or not it exists is entirely independent of my actions anyway, so why pay a thing? In order for fundamentalist libertarianism to work it will need to come up with a solution to the free-rider problem. Got one?
- xenophanes 15y ago
  > In order for fundamentalist libertarianism to work it will need to come up with a solution to the free-rider problem. Got one? Yes: http://fallibleideas.com/public-goods http://fallibleideas.com/public-goods
  - leot 15y ago
    Any evidence that this solves it?
    - xenophanes 15y ago
      It's a philosophical argument, not an evidence-based argument. Do you have a criticism of it other than that you are an empiricist who dislikes philosophy? Do you have a rival idea which isn't refuted?
      - leot 15y ago
        Philosophers use evidence all the time in support of their arguments, especially when they are making empirical claims (as you are: you are claiming that the costs of government outweigh the benefits when it comes to the provision of public goods). If you choose to not use evidence, then it is important to be far more careful and charitable than you have been. E.g., in your "simple argument" you only consider examples at the extreme (million -x benefit or 1% ROI). These are straw men -- you don't in fact deal with any kind of realistic example. For your reasoning to have been good and fair, you would have had to consider the scenario that puts your position in the worst possible light and then show that it still holds. Imagine a dam that costs $100 but provides $10,000 of benefit to 20 users. Imagine, further, that all 20 users are competing with each other for status and customers, they are all roughly equally wealthy, and that paying for the dam will be a significant expense for most of them. Even though the dam could be built by any five of the users, any user who doesn't pay will gain a comparative advantage over the others. The libertarian might propose that they collectively participate in a contract. But why should anyone agree to participate in this contract, if they know that the dam will be built irrespective of their participation, and if they will get an advantage over others by not participating? No doubt the hold-outs will claim that they can't afford to pay for it, or that they don't want it -- but this is just a negotiating strategy. Sure, setting up a government to deal with the provision of a single collective good is extremely inefficient. The issue is that there are many thousands of such public goods (and services). The empirical argument, here, is that on balance the inefficiency is worth it. It does not appear, from your essay, that you have carefully and sympathetically examined the relevant counter-positions. If you haven't already looked at it carefully, I would recommend http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-rider/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-rider/ It is interesting that free market fundamentalists seem to have trouble deciding whether their argument is an empirical or a philosophical/moral/ideological one. They will claim that libertarianism is the answer because government-based collective action is always less efficient (an empirical claim). When evidence is provided that this need not always be true, they switch to an argument of "freedom" and natural rights. When this argument is shown wanting, they then revert to their efficiency-related arguments. This flip-flop frequently works to fool many, it seems.
vacri 15y ago
One of the (many) flaws with libertarian dogma is the assumption that a person can be intelligently informed about every aspect that might affect them, from social effects of libraries to air quality to choosing services right down to who picks up the garbage. Building regulations? Who needs those, right? Let's just replace it by doing 'buyer beware' and making every purchaser of a property have to do an in-depth research of everything, down to what kind of metal the pipes were made out of. Volunteer charity also only works for <i>visible</i> problems. There's no need for it to go away, but to suggest it could replace (and improve on!) governmental social services is just silly. Everyone gave money to Katrina funds... when it happened. What percentage of the original donators were still donating 6 months later? 12 months? 24 months? Same question for Haiti. Private charity is good for the initial burst for visible causes, but it sucks for ongoing support on the grand scale.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

yummyfajitas 15y ago

Libraries are a private good, not a public good. Since so many people seem to be getting confused on this point, I'll just post these articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_good The fact that their customers are broke (but not so broke they can't afford cable TV) doesn't change this.

urbanjunkie 15y ago
And you know they can afford cable tv how, exactly? There are apparently 1.5 million homeless children in the US. Are they watching cable tv? But it's ok - you can link to the correct definition of public vs private good. I'm actually disgusted by your attitude.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  And you know they can afford cable tv how, exactly? Because the US government did a survey measured this. I link to the raw data in a separate post on this thread, currently downmodded for reasons unknown. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3607475 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3607475
  - urbanjunkie 15y ago
    I think it's pretty obvious why you're being down-modded. It's what happens when you set up your own strawman and then demolish it.
pessimizer 15y ago
Do you have any information about the cable TV subscription rates of the poor, or are you just trotting out bullshit theories of poverty as lack of impulse control and proper priority setting that were already dusty when Reagan took office? edit: That is definitely information. Appreciate the references (that were given as a reply to the other comment.) Will look at them later to see if they answer the question that came to mind as I was reading your numbers; what's the churn? How many people were in that 14% during any particular period? For example, if I did a survey during a famine to find out how many people had a meal that day, and found out 2/3s had, it would be incorrect to say that only 1/3 of people had been effected.

tomjen3 15y ago

If they can't afford to pay for them, they should provide more value to society and not, egoistically, expect to extract more than they put in.