Replies

Please look up the distinction: public goods are characterized by indivisible consumption; that is, once produced, no one can be excluded from consuming them. Police protection, defense, street lighting, and clean air are usually offered as examples.

By this definition, then "public goods" might be mythical constructs. For example, the police don't necessarily protect citizens (as explained in Dial 911 And Die) let alone protecting certain classes of citizens, such as blacks in the South in the 50s, or Jews in Nazi Germany. Hence, what exactly is "police protection" anyway? Near as I can tell, the police have the job of protecting the government and the elite from the unwashed masses; they certainly treat some places as would an enemy occupation, sent in to ~~oppress~~ keep the peace.

Futhermore, consider public bads, like taxes that impoverish everybody, the poor especially so, or victim disarmament laws that seek to render everyone defenseless, questions of rights aside. These things are produced in great numbers by governments, and they often lead to problems that are then proposed to be solved by even more public bads.

The author if this article stated that Libertarianism has been dealt a death blow on 9-11, and that the only viable road to the future is with a strong government and continued restrictions on liberties and the free market.

One of the most inane things about this argument is that much of the anger the Muslims have with the US is the interventionist policies in the first place. Had we been a bit more Libertarian before, we might not have suffered the attacks in the first place. But now that we have, the author is trying to say that Libertarianism is dead.

I do not disagree with your remarks, but they speak on a different topic than my post.

Sorry, but comments like "try to educate yourself before shooting from the hip" indicates to me some disagreement.

By this definition, then "public goods" might be mythical constructs. For example, Firstly, I offered more examples than one.

Secondly, your argument against the public nature of police protection fails on two grounds. (i) You describe cases where the definition of the public, not protection, has been modified. You are correct that in Nazi Germany the Jews were no longer "public," just as Black in the South were similarly excluded, hence did not receive police protection. (ii) goods and services --- both public and private --- may change form after they are produced. An apple may rot, and the police created originally to protect all may be directed to stop protecting certain elements of the public, as you pointed out.

TQ: I do not disagree with your remarks, but they speak on a different topic than my post.

Coloradan: Sorry, but comments like "try to educate yourself before shooting from the hip" indicates to me some disagreement.

I completely agree. In addition, there is an indication of something else: the route out of the disagrement.

Suppose I came from a remote island and never got any education. Suppose further that I ask you, "When I throw an apple it always falls down, no matter how I throw it. Why is that?"

You would probably give an answer, "This is because of gravity," but if I were to pursue the topic further, you would direct me to read up something on physics. After all, we know the answer to that question since Sir Isaac Newton. There is nothing to debate here.

In contrast, when it comes to economics, there is a grea number of people who debate even what is well known. They build "theories" by misusing notions and words like "contract" and "market." Then they get upset if someone points it our, accusing him of "refusing to debate." There is nothing to debate here: one has to learn first what is already known.

I have no disrespect to those with limited knowlege -- G-d knows that my own is very limtited too. But unwillingness to learn --- or substituting learning with visits to web sites --- is something else altogether.