4 ms·

I think the "roads" problem is just a simple and easy example of the general class of collective action problems that require a single authority to manage. Here

I think the "roads" problem is just a simple and easy example of the general class of collective action problems that require a single authority to manage. Here is another example: the design of a network cannot be modified arbitrarily. It's rational for a private company to insert a road into a system to benefit itself at the disadvantage to others (cf. negative externalities). Indeed it's rational for several to do this making ad-hoc modifications to the network, the net result of this is significant inefficiency. Collective action problems and (negative) externalities are the main cases where we require a single-point-of-trust / authority to coordinate a system. Libertarians say that private companies can do this, but when you ask "well what do these companies look like?" you invariably get something like a small government. The moral question then arises: we have these single-points-of-trust, do we have any democratic control over them? The answer, in a libterian system is No (money != vote). The libertarian solution to these problems then, seems to me, to hand them over to private tyrannies with no public accountability to perform largely the same function as a government. Its at this point the "NOPE!! LEAVE ME ALONE!" tends to come out.

baddox 12y ago
The collective action problem sounds good in theory, but the concept breaks down when you realize that the formation of a government (at least a democracy or republic) is also a collective action. The idea is that we can't form a market to efficiently create certain things like roads, but that somehow we can form a government which can efficiently create those things. Market failures, like the failure to produce a public good, are not defeated or circumvented by forming a government, because government is also a public good. > It's rational for a private company to insert a road into a system to benefit itself at the disadvantage to others (cf. negative externalities). Indeed it's rational for several to do this making ad-hoc modifications to the network, the net result of this is significant inefficiency. It's also rational for a government to insert a road into a system to benefit "itself" (i.e. politicians, construction companies that are "friendly" with government, etc.) at the disadvantage to others. What is your response to my environmental argument? That's an argument about specific negative externalities that are produced by government that I would not expect to be produced by private infrastructure. > The moral question then arises: we have these single-points-of-trust, do we have any democratic control over them? It's just as reasonable to ask that about government roads. Does government's decisions about roads reflect the desires of the population? I haven't seen any data, so I don't really know, but I would suspect the answer to be mostly no. But markets often do have the quality that their products reflect the desires of the population.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  Your parent didn't claim government was the most efficient way. Your parent just claimed the public has more control over government, than a company operating as a pseudo-government serving similar functions. Does government's decisions about roads reflect the desires of the population? I haven't seen any data, so I don't really know, but I would suspect the answer to be mostly no. Well, if that isn't a convincing argument...
  - baddox 12y ago
    > Your parent just claimed the public has more control over government, than a company operating as a pseudo-government serving similar functions. And I think the claim that public has more control over government needs to be backed up by some sort of data. Of course, you'd need to define the term "pseudo-government" as well. > Well, if that isn't a convincing argument... It's not meant to be a convincing argument. That's why I explicitly said that I don't have any data, and that I simply suspect something. Do you have any data? There are plenty of studies on whether the public approves of the general behavior of its government, and at least in the USA the numbers aren't great. My suspicion is that the numbers wouldn't be better when it comes to roads, based on the frequent mismanagement of roads and the number of complaints I here about roads. Again, not data, just suspicion.
    - mjburgess 12y ago
      > And I think the claim that public has more control over government needs to be backed up by some sort of data. Of course, you'd need to define the term "pseudo-government" as well. For pseudo-gov read "multinational". As far as data goes, I cant think of a principle more well-evidenced. A single person who is not a consumer of a corporation has no influence whatsoever over the decision making of that corporation. I can go to my local representative and act in my local community (petition, etc.) in which my local representative has a stake and he can do things for me. The tremendous amount of public shaming the government goes through (compared to private corps) should be evidence enough that there's a considerable amount of public accountability.

baddox 12y ago

The collective action problem sounds good in theory, but the concept breaks down when you realize that the formation of a government (at least a democracy or republic) is also a collective action. The idea is that we can't form a market to efficiently create certain things like roads, but that somehow we can form a government which can efficiently create those things. Market failures, like the failure to produce a public good, are not defeated or circumvented by forming a government, because government is also a public good. > It's rational for a private company to insert a road into a system to benefit itself at the disadvantage to others (cf. negative externalities). Indeed it's rational for several to do this making ad-hoc modifications to the network, the net result of this is significant inefficiency. It's also rational for a government to insert a road into a system to benefit "itself" (i.e. politicians, construction companies that are "friendly" with government, etc.) at the disadvantage to others. What is your response to my environmental argument? That's an argument about specific negative externalities that are produced by government that I would not expect to be produced by private infrastructure. > The moral question then arises: we have these single-points-of-trust, do we have any democratic control over them? It's just as reasonable to ask that about government roads. Does government's decisions about roads reflect the desires of the population? I haven't seen any data, so I don't really know, but I would suspect the answer to be mostly no. But markets often do have the quality that their products reflect the desires of the population.

sliverstorm 12y ago
Your parent didn't claim government was the most efficient way. Your parent just claimed the public has more control over government, than a company operating as a pseudo-government serving similar functions. Does government's decisions about roads reflect the desires of the population? I haven't seen any data, so I don't really know, but I would suspect the answer to be mostly no. Well, if that isn't a convincing argument...
- baddox 12y ago
  > Your parent just claimed the public has more control over government, than a company operating as a pseudo-government serving similar functions. And I think the claim that public has more control over government needs to be backed up by some sort of data. Of course, you'd need to define the term "pseudo-government" as well. > Well, if that isn't a convincing argument... It's not meant to be a convincing argument. That's why I explicitly said that I don't have any data, and that I simply suspect something. Do you have any data? There are plenty of studies on whether the public approves of the general behavior of its government, and at least in the USA the numbers aren't great. My suspicion is that the numbers wouldn't be better when it comes to roads, based on the frequent mismanagement of roads and the number of complaints I here about roads. Again, not data, just suspicion.
  - mjburgess 12y ago
    > And I think the claim that public has more control over government needs to be backed up by some sort of data. Of course, you'd need to define the term "pseudo-government" as well. For pseudo-gov read "multinational". As far as data goes, I cant think of a principle more well-evidenced. A single person who is not a consumer of a corporation has no influence whatsoever over the decision making of that corporation. I can go to my local representative and act in my local community (petition, etc.) in which my local representative has a stake and he can do things for me. The tremendous amount of public shaming the government goes through (compared to private corps) should be evidence enough that there's a considerable amount of public accountability.