5 ms·

But what is the definition of a public good? Is it only to be limited to things that are natural monopolies/network systems (as you suggest) or should it also i

But what is the definition of a public good? Is it only to be limited to things that are natural monopolies/network systems (as you suggest) or should it also include practically non-excludable and non-rival goods (information)? I would argue we should go further. Some goods should be considered to be morally non-excludable goods. We should have the moral courage to assert that we cannot exclude health care to all people (interestingly the NHS is seemingly the last bastion of public goods in the UK, though the market fundamentalists have it out for it too). However, market fundamentalists usually don’t seem willing to take such moral stands and instead all moral decisions are implicitly left to the market. In the hands of such practitioners, markets are smokescreens for classism, racism, etc.

pastacacioepepe 3y ago
> In the hands of such practitioners I would call them cultists at this point.
- avidphantasm 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - arethuza 3y ago
    I really tire of arguments based on ideology - both from left and right. I wish we could just have a sensible grown up discussion about which services are best delivered by the private sector and which by the public sector - there are plenty of both!
    - avidphantasm 3y ago
      Ahem, the ideology of rationality and efficiency. The point is, we need stories to order our world and draw us together…
friendzis 3y ago
> But what is the definition of a public good? Whatever the populus via government decides that to be.
- spacebanana7 3y ago
  I don't think it's so subjective. If a democratic government decided that policing, clean air or firefighting weren't public goods they'd be incorrect. Even if polling supported it.
  - friendzis 3y ago
    Well, there two distinct questions: what should be treated as public good and what is a public good. In my view "what is public good" is defined by the very act of public funding and availability. What should be public good is entirely different, moral/political discussion.
  - gary_0 3y ago
    Anarcho-capitalists would argue strongly that all 3 of your examples are no different from any other service provided to customers. I've seen them (or sympathetic sci-fi writers) think up all sorts of imaginative scenarios about how that might work. Personally I agree with you, I think privatizing any of those things would be madness, because the real world never ends up working like the ideological fantasy, but it's hard to get everyone to agree on what's an objective economic truth.
    - oblio 3y ago
      > Anarcho-capitalists would argue strongly that all 3 of your examples are no different from any other service provided to customers. I've seen them (or sympathetic sci-fi writers) think up all sorts of imaginative scenarios about how that might work. That's just silly, we've had the anarcho-capitalists perspective in the past, that's how the modern firefighting services were started. Do you know how they'd work? Firefighters would come up to your house and ask for half of what was inside in order to extinguish the fire, because there's no free market for desperate people. Ooooor... they'd do the same to your neighbors, because if they wouldn't extinguish your fire, their house could burn down, too. Ooooor... they'd set stuff on fire so that they'd have who to blackmail. Ooooor... you could pay them a constant insurance/protection fee so that they'd actually help. And that insurance/protection fee would become widespread, because who wants their house to burn down? At which point, why not just distribute the cost to everyone since 99.999% of buildings can burn down, and make it a public service? Which is where we are now. Anarcho-capitalists and libertarians are basically people who don't know history and would want to speedrun it with great pain and suffering for everyone, along the way.
youngtaff 3y ago
Leaving it to the market is a moral stance
globular-toast 3y ago
One definition could be that which is effectively required by citizens to exist and operate in a society. This would include utilities essential to life (water, heating, etc.), internet (given that the government essentially requires it for many things now), money (it's essentially required to have a bank account), healthcare, transport. It's important to be realistic here and not fall back to technical truths. Yes, you could technically buy a house with physical cash. In practice, you need a bank account and to deal with the private banking system. Another important factor for me is whether choice reasonably exists in the market. One of the great things about having a private sector is I can choose where to allocate my funds. I'm quite into music so naturally I have more instruments and sound equipment than most. But to afford this I must sacrifice other areas, like fishing. I don't own any fishing equipment because I'm not into fishing. This is great because it allows for a rich and diverse society. But when the doctor says you need a £3000 procedure or else you will die, nobody chooses instead to allocate the funds elsewhere. There is no reasonable choice when it comes to healthcare. So it's wrong to treat it just like fishing.

pastacacioepepe 3y ago

> In the hands of such practitioners I would call them cultists at this point.

avidphantasm 3y ago
[flagged]
- arethuza 3y ago
  I really tire of arguments based on ideology - both from left and right. I wish we could just have a sensible grown up discussion about which services are best delivered by the private sector and which by the public sector - there are plenty of both!
  - avidphantasm 3y ago
    Ahem, the ideology of rationality and efficiency. The point is, we need stories to order our world and draw us together…

friendzis 3y ago

> But what is the definition of a public good? Whatever the populus via government decides that to be.

spacebanana7 3y ago
I don't think it's so subjective. If a democratic government decided that policing, clean air or firefighting weren't public goods they'd be incorrect. Even if polling supported it.
- friendzis 3y ago
  Well, there two distinct questions: what should be treated as public good and what is a public good. In my view "what is public good" is defined by the very act of public funding and availability. What should be public good is entirely different, moral/political discussion.
- gary_0 3y ago
  Anarcho-capitalists would argue strongly that all 3 of your examples are no different from any other service provided to customers. I've seen them (or sympathetic sci-fi writers) think up all sorts of imaginative scenarios about how that might work. Personally I agree with you, I think privatizing any of those things would be madness, because the real world never ends up working like the ideological fantasy, but it's hard to get everyone to agree on what's an objective economic truth.
  - oblio 3y ago
    > Anarcho-capitalists would argue strongly that all 3 of your examples are no different from any other service provided to customers. I've seen them (or sympathetic sci-fi writers) think up all sorts of imaginative scenarios about how that might work. That's just silly, we've had the anarcho-capitalists perspective in the past, that's how the modern firefighting services were started. Do you know how they'd work? Firefighters would come up to your house and ask for half of what was inside in order to extinguish the fire, because there's no free market for desperate people. Ooooor... they'd do the same to your neighbors, because if they wouldn't extinguish your fire, their house could burn down, too. Ooooor... they'd set stuff on fire so that they'd have who to blackmail. Ooooor... you could pay them a constant insurance/protection fee so that they'd actually help. And that insurance/protection fee would become widespread, because who wants their house to burn down? At which point, why not just distribute the cost to everyone since 99.999% of buildings can burn down, and make it a public service? Which is where we are now. Anarcho-capitalists and libertarians are basically people who don't know history and would want to speedrun it with great pain and suffering for everyone, along the way.

youngtaff 3y ago

Leaving it to the market is a moral stance

globular-toast 3y ago

One definition could be that which is effectively required by citizens to exist and operate in a society. This would include utilities essential to life (water, heating, etc.), internet (given that the government essentially requires it for many things now), money (it's essentially required to have a bank account), healthcare, transport. It's important to be realistic here and not fall back to technical truths. Yes, you could technically buy a house with physical cash. In practice, you need a bank account and to deal with the private banking system. Another important factor for me is whether choice reasonably exists in the market. One of the great things about having a private sector is I can choose where to allocate my funds. I'm quite into music so naturally I have more instruments and sound equipment than most. But to afford this I must sacrifice other areas, like fishing. I don't own any fishing equipment because I'm not into fishing. This is great because it allows for a rich and diverse society. But when the doctor says you need a £3000 procedure or else you will die, nobody chooses instead to allocate the funds elsewhere. There is no reasonable choice when it comes to healthcare. So it's wrong to treat it just like fishing.