If the market doesn't supply it and there is a demand for it the market will soon provide it. Which goods and services would you like the market to provide you that gubment provides at present?
I think the lack of understanding is exhibited on your part.
I don't quite understand your comment but I think you are trying to say I lack understanding.
Let me expand. A society cannot exist without individuals evne though individuals can exist without society. Gubment and society (by the liberal/religious definition) need individuals in order to survive. And individuals need freedom in order to survive (or at least better produce under these conditions which society needs as well). Therefore societies need to protect individual freedom to survive. A person controlled and directed for the bennifit of society will act as a robot (all except the very braiwashed). He will have no incentive to innovate adapt or produce because "he" will not bennifit from these actions.
In any system of entities --- from particles of matter, to goods-producing companies, to animals and human human being --- the whole is bigger than the sum of the constituents. The difference between the two is what is call synergy.
In application to society, it means that there are actions and interests of the community that are not represented by the individuals themselves, taken one a time.
It is the synergy that is missing in yours and most libertarian arguments.
This "synergy" (to use your term) is a natural occurance and effect of economic law and only works if voluntary. If working together benifits all concerned your synergey is in full swing. If working together benifits the elite but not the worker your synergy rapidly fails. In order for us to be a "community" the community must bennifit all involved. If the commuinity distributes bennifits to the unproductive, the un-willing, and the unlawfull your synergy fails again. That is the Libertarian philosophy as I understand it.
Libertarians are not anti-community, just anti-community control. Libertarians believe that the community should be a purely bennificial and voluntary "contract".
EBUCK
As I said earlier, this is a common misunderstanding, as may be learned from most economics texts. So-called public goods cannot be providd by the market. I gave a brief explanation and examples in the previous posts.
TQ: In any system of entities --- from particles of matter, to goods-producing companies, to animals and human being --- the whole is bigger than the sum of the constituents. The difference between the two is what is call synergy.
In application to society, it means that there are actions and interests of the community that are not represented by the individuals themselves, taken one a time.
It is the synergy that is missing in yours and most libertarian arguments.
EBUCK: This "synergy" (to use your term) is a natural occurance and effect of economic law and only works if voluntary.
This cannot be an argument against what I said: I have mentioned that this is a universal phenomenon, present in particles of matter, for which the issue of free will does not arise.
that the community should be a purely bennificial and voluntary "contract". There is nothing voluntary about the existence of the community: if you pollute air, this affects me. Such things in economics are called negative externalities.
Look, I appreciate your detailed reply. Let me just say this: whatever positions I see advanced by most libertarians are stated in a way that contradicts basic economics. When I try to point that gently, I am usually referred to… web sites.
I would like to see the libertarian position stated with the benefit of what we know about society, not on the basis of some high-school "consumer economics" course.
I am still waiting for that to happen.