Libertarianism

[Michael Hardner]

I will rephrase my question to be more general. Should we expect members of society to pay for infrastructure or programs when they neither beneift from that infrastructure nor want the benefit?

Yes, we should. Why ? Because it makes a better society. We wouldn't even be here if it weren't for said coercion - we wouldn't have developed our infrastructure, and our society wouldn't be advanced enough for you folks to want to dismantle it.

Power and wealth naturally accumulates, and creates imbalances. Monopolies and guilds form, and need to be kept in check. Force is a necessary component of order, unfortunately. At least with government force, we have democratic institutions that keep it in check.

[Renegade]

Yes, we should. Why ? Because it makes a better society. We wouldn't even be here if it weren't for said coercion - we wouldn't have developed our infrastructure, and our society wouldn't be advanced enough for you folks to want to dismantle it.

"better" is a subjective term. I'm sure it is better for those who use the infrastructure. Those who are forced to pay for the infrastructure or programs but receive no benefit may be inclined to disagree. Also it really depends upon what you mean by our society is "advanced". As with any change, some would be better off, some would be worse.

Power and wealth naturally accumulates, and creates imbalances. Monopolies and guilds form, and need to be kept in check. Force is a necessary component of order, unfortunately. At least with government force, we have democratic institutions that keep it in check.

I agree that power and wealth will naturally accumulate. Personally I don't have an issue with that. Even in nature power accumulates (Darwinism). Unfortunately democratic societies tend to resort to force because it is in the interest of the majority to do so, not because it is "fair".

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Renegade,

Is it not completely the driver's responsibilty to avoid hitting pedestrians? How can you claim that this is a benefit that pedestrian should pay for?

I'll also admit a bad analogy here, but...streetlights, marked crosswalks, even beepers to alert blind people at crosswalks when it is safest to cross are all paid for by the public purse. They do tend to be safer than 'Jay-walking for the blind'.

However, I will skip this and address your clarified point:

Should we expect members of society to pay for infrastructure or programs when they neither beneift from that infrastructure nor want the benefit?

It can be argued that you do benefit from almost every sort of 'infrastructure', whether it is plain to see or not.

If you chose to 'opt out', how would the rest of us keep you from using our publicly funded roadways, sidewalks, etc? City water, garbage collection and sewage services? We would have to make you a pariah.

[August1991]

I will rephrase my question to be more general. Should we expect members of society to pay for infrastructure or programs when they neither beneift from that infrastructure nor want the benefit?

No we should not. Why pay for something you don't want or need. That's destruction of value and makes society a poorer place. It is no different from taking two oranges from you and giving you back only one (while dropping the other down a garbage chute).

It can be argued that you do benefit from almost every sort of 'infrastructure', whether it is plain to see or not.

If you chose to 'opt out', how would the rest of us keep you from using our publicly funded roadways, sidewalks, etc? City water, garbage collection and sewage services? We would have to make you a pariah.

Thelonious, you have gotten to the heart of the question - and it's worse than what you describe. In many cases, we don't even know whether you "use" or receive any " benefit" from the public service. (Consider national defence or local police.)

IOW, what stops me from falsely claiming to be a blind person and then using the streetlight paid for by others?

Dear Renegade,

Should the blind have to pay for street lights they neither use nor want?

It could be argued that they do 'use' it, for it enables drivers to see them better. They get enhanced 'safety measures', because they cannot see a car coming (though they might hear it better than the sighted), but the drivers can better see them.

theloniusfleabag, in my view the benefits you describe for that the blind person would get are dubious at best. Is it not completely the driver's responsibilty to avoid hitting pedestrians? How can you claim that this is a benefit that pedestrian should pay for? By your analogy, if a company pollutes the air, I should be obligated to pay for it because the beneift I get is clean air.

Wow! I'm impressed with the direction of this thread.

I think it is correct to say that if blind people would just stay at home and not walk on streets, there would be no problem. On the other hand, if there were no cars around, blind people could walk on streets without fear and there'd be no problem either. The problem here (as in the clean air example) is how to accomodate two people using what appears to be a single resource.

In the case of blind people and cars, it seems obvious: install streetlights (along with a few other changes too). Then both cars and blind people can simultaneously use (in this simple example anyway) a single road.

Now then, who should pay for the streetlight? Well, I hate to say this but I don't know, and I'm almost certain nobody has a defendable answer except for one small critical detail. In deciding who should pay for installing the streetlight, I'd choose the person most likely to in fact install it. Afterall, without a streetlight, we are going to have dead blind people, wrecked cars and maybe some ugly civil suits. In short, we'd have a mess.

It is not wrong to say that many of the world's problems stem from the fact that we know we need streetlights but we can't figure out who we should get to pay for them. The lack of streetlights takes second place to the question of who will pay.

[ClearWest]

August,

I don't mean that government should be involved in marriage. I'm saying that marriage is an involuntary relationship (and the frequent bitterness of divorce is the best proof of my point).

Marriage is an involuntary relationship? I don't think so! You picked your spouse, you signed the contract, you bought the ring. If you don't want to be married to someone anymore you can always cancel your contract through divorce--but that doesn't make the marriage involuntary. Thus I see no reason for government to be involved.

ClearWest, if we could conduct all our affairs with others through voluntary, contingency contracts, then Libertarianism would be great. Unfortunately, our entire lives would be spent reviewing and signing the equivalent of lengthy prenuptial agreements - and even then, I'm not sure it would work.

An agreement doesn't necessarily involve contracts and signatures. Verbal Contracts. Or a road can have posted on its entry-way "By using this road you agree to obeying all traffic signs and road symbols herein."

If you don't like Canada, you are free to leave. You are certainly free to leave Alberta or Calgary. Your situation is not unlike the parents you received, or many people after several years of marriage.

Funny, I thought this was a democracy where we can change laws and change the system. If we disagree with the government we don't have to leave, we can change it. It will be the same, but better, in Libertarianism. The difference is that government won't be able to take people's life, liberty, or property.

Someone notices that the streetlight needs replacing (or that a streetlight is needed), they raise awareness in the community, they raise money to pay for the streetlight. They pay to have it installed by a private company. Again, no government (force) required. Everyone who uses the road agrees to obey the traffic rules involving the streetlight. If there is a problem with people breaking these rules, a private security guard can be hired to maintain order on the road.

You're kidding, right?

Have you ever tried to obtain voluntary contributions? Should everyone pay the same amount? What happens if one of the neighbours says he doesn't need a street light because, as he claims, he's blind.

No, I haven't tried to raise funds for a charity. But there are other ways to do it. Create an incentive for people to contribute. Put on a raffle and sell tickets. All proceeds go to the new streetlight.

No, not everyone should have to pay the same amount. People can pay whatever they want, or nothing at all. It's not for government to decide.

Yes, if someone feels they don't want to pay for the streetlight (whether because they're blind or whatever, it shouldn't be anyone else's business) they shouldn't have to. Non-force.

ClearWest, if everyone in the world were completely honest and co-operative at all times, then we wouldn't need Libertarianism because we could go straight to Communism.

A Libertarian government wouldn't demand unconditional obedience and cooperation from their citizens and a communist one would. A Libertarian government wouldn't force anyone to do anything!

All this talk about voluntary funds is because I think that things can be done voluntary rather than by FORCE. It doesn't mean that people have to become saints! It could even be for their own benefit while still benefitting others. That's how capitalism works.

Thelonius,

Indeed, I am in complete agreement here. The 'Communist Utopia' and ClearWest's vision of a Libertarian society are quite similar in that both would require a similar thought: the individual will benefit from voluntary involvement in community projects. That is like saying "Given absolute freedom, people would turn into 'communists-by-choice".

Both 'voluntary communism' and Libertarianism are likely only workable by a very miniscule minority.

It's not even close to communism! You guys keep comparing Communism and Libertarianism because they both claim to have the answers which are much different from yours, but they are polar opposites. In communism people are FORCED to cooperate for the good of society. In Libertarianism people are free to make their own choices, and they do not have to cooperate, but they likely will because that's how they can trade and get the things they need and want.

[Renegade]

It can be argued that you do benefit from almost every sort of 'infrastructure', whether it is plain to see or not.

If you chose to 'opt out', how would the rest of us keep you from using our publicly funded roadways, sidewalks, etc? City water, garbage collection and sewage services? We would have to make you a pariah.

theloniusfleabag, you are sidestepping the question. You claim that everyone somehow benefits from all infrastructure. Before discussing whether or not this is true, will you agree with the principle that if someone can be shown to not use the infrastructure, that they should be not paying for that infrastructure?

I would extend that further and ask, if they beneifit unequally from an infrastructure, should they pay proportionate to the benefit they recieve?

[Renegade]

Thelonious, you have gotten to the heart of the question - and it's worse than what you describe. In many cases, we don't even know whether you "use" or receive any " benefit" from the public service. (Consider national defence or local police.)

IOW, what stops me from falsely claiming to be a blind person and then using the streetlight paid for by others?

August, you and TFB, are making a case that in many cases it is not possible to administer a system of allocating the cost to the beneficiaries. What I am trying to understand is if you and TFB at least agree with the principle. Let's say hypothetically you can measure the individual beneift of a piece of infrastructure, would you then agree the cost should be allocated according to benefit?

Now then, who should pay for the streetlight? Well, I hate to say this but I don't know, and I'm almost certain nobody has a defendable answer except for one small critical detail. In deciding who should pay for installing the streetlight, I'd choose the person most likely to in fact install it. Afterall, without a streetlight, we are going to have dead blind people, wrecked cars and maybe some ugly civil suits. In short, we'd have a mess.

For me it is hard to buy the argument that the blind should have to subsidize someone elses (drivers) proper use of the infrastructure because it benefits them by not getting run over. Let's walk through some simplified progression.

1. Before cars, pedestrians (sighted and blind) walked the streets without fear for their lives.

2. Someone invents a car, and some (sighted) pedestrians turn into drivers.

3. So now, the blind pedestrian is forced to pay for infrastructure to minimize his chances of getting killed? Doesn't make sense to me.

This an interesting discussion and I hope it will continue in the spirit it is intended.

[Michael Hardner]

"better" is a subjective term.

Rene - you caught me red-handed breaking one of my own rules. I usually use 'more civilized' because it slyly conveys a change (civilized, as in more like a city) without necessarily saying it's an improvement.

I'm sure it is better for those who use the infrastructure.

Yes, such as roads. Not better for those who don't use roads, electricity etc. In other words great for the Unabomber types.

Those who are forced to pay for the infrastructure or programs but receive no benefit may be inclined to disagree.

Also it really depends upon what you mean by our society is "advanced". As with any change, some would be better off, some would be worse.

The half-dozen or so people who would end up controlling the whole world under this plan would do worse, I'll give you that.

I agree that power and wealth will naturally accumulate. Personally I don't have an issue with that. Even in nature power accumulates (Darwinism).

Exactly. And nature - for all its beauty - is constantly being negated by civilization. It's a natural thing to want to strike somebody when you're angry with them, but we have rules against that.

Unfortunately democratic societies tend to resort to force because it is in the interest of the majority to do so, not because it is "fair".

You're right - "fair" is too subjective. It creates a peace, maybe even a dull peace. I visited Cuba during the zenith of socialism there and it was very placid and very very dull.

[Riverwind]

For me it is hard to buy the argument that the blind should have to subsidize someone elses (drivers) proper use of the infrastructure because it benefits them by not getting run over.

I think this discussion about whether a specific individual benefits from a specific type of a public infrastructure is moot. The real issue is what unwritten contract exists between a society and the individuals in that society. In our society we have spelled out a number of rights that an individual has and set up institutions to protect those rights on behalf of individuals. In return for this collective protection, an individual has obligations to the society. These obligations include paying taxes to support social infrastructure that the individual may not have any use for.

In other words, the blind man should pay for the street light because the blind man expects his neighbors to respect his property rights and expects society to protect him if his neighbors try to violate those rights.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Renegade,

Riverwind gives an all-encompassing (though on the surface, vague) answer here.

In other words, the blind man should pay for the street light because the blind man expects his neighbors to respect his property rights and expects society to protect him if his neighbors try to violate those rights.

You ask,

will you agree with the principle that if someone can be shown to not use the infrastructure, that they should be not paying for that infrastructure?

and I must answer, No, really. Riverwind touches on why, but I'll tell you in my own words. I am a 'democratic socialist', (though not the NSDAP variety) and believe that if majority will dictates that a thing is needed, all should pay. Mostly this is true, enough times at least, for me to support the notion.

Let's say hypothetically you can measure the individual beneift of a piece of infrastructure, would you then agree the cost should be allocated according to benefit?

Well, let's take the street light. Do you eat food? Well, delivery drivers need those streetlights to deliver product to markets safely. It keeps costs down.

Do you drink water? Well, city maintenance engineers sometimes need those streetlights to perform their job so you and I can have water.

It would be well nigh impossible to figure out exactly what yours or my benefit would be relative to the percentage of consumption of the lumens of that streetlight.

1. Before cars, pedestrians (sighted and blind) walked the streets without fear for their lives.

2. Someone invents a car, and some (sighted) pedestrians turn into drivers.

3. So now, the blind pedestrian is forced to pay for infrastructure to minimize his chances of getting killed? Doesn't make sense to me.

It seems to me, that to 'opt out' of public services would render living conditions 'semi-troglodyte'.

I don't see this as being in anyone's benefit, least of all mine. Yet the 'libertarian argument' is to believe that some wealthy benefactor (or the notion that some 'Petey Punchclock' will voluntarily forgo his beer money so that some delivery driver doesn't run over a blind jay-walker in the black of night) would pay for the streetlight out of the goodness of his/her heart. I have my doubts.

[Renegade]

For me it is hard to buy the argument that the blind should have to subsidize someone elses (drivers) proper use of the infrastructure because it benefits them by not getting run over.

I think this discussion about whether a specific individual benefits from a specific type of a public infrastructure is moot. The real issue is what unwritten contract exists between a society and the individuals in that society. In our society we have spelled out a number of rights that an individual has and set up institutions to protect those rights on behalf of individuals. In return for this collective protection, an individual has obligations to the society. These obligations include paying taxes to support social infrastructure that the individual may not have any use for.

In other words, the blind man should pay for the street light because the blind man expects his neighbors to respect his property rights and expects society to protect him if his neighbors try to violate those rights.

Riverwind, Yes your argument makes sense. The problem is only half the contract is spelled out. What is spelled out is the rights an individual has. What is not spelled out are what his obligations are. Those obligations to pay taxes vary from year to year at the whim of the power in charge.

It is not an equal or fair bargain when one side has a defined set of rights but the price the individual pays for those rights vary at the whim of society,

[Riverwind]

Riverwind, Yes your argument makes sense. The problem is only half the contract is spelled out. What is spelled out is the rights an individual has. What is not spelled out are what his obligations are. Those obligations to pay taxes vary from year to year at the whim of the power in charge.

The mechanism for deciding who is in charge is spelled out carefully. In addition, every individual is given the opportunity to express their opinion about who should be in charge (or even become the person in charge themselves).

You can argue that the democratic system can be arbitrary and will be unfair to some individuals some of the time. However, the same problem exists in the free market economy: the rules are clear and applied equally to everyone yet some people will find that they get screwed by the market system because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you are willing accept arbitrariness in the market system then you should accept some arbitrariness in the democratic system provided the rules are clear and applied consistently.

[Renegade]

Let's say hypothetically you can measure the individual beneift of a piece of infrastructure, would you then agree the cost should be allocated according to benefit?

Well, let's take the street light. Do you eat food? Well, delivery drivers need those streetlights to deliver product to markets safely. It keeps costs down.

Do you drink water? Well, city maintenance engineers sometimes need those streetlights to perform their job so you and I can have water.

Would it not be a more direct correlation of benefit to cost if the user of the infrastructure paid the cost and passed it on? Let's take your example if the delivery driver needed streetlights, the delivery company should share the cost of the streetlights. I would indirectly pay because my share of the cost is included in the cost of food. The more food I consume the more of the streetlight cost I bear. There is no need for me to directly bear the cost out of proportion of the amount I consume.

It would be well nigh impossible to figure out exactly what yours or my benefit would be relative to the percentage of consumption of the lumens of that streetlight.

That's true, it is impossible to get a perfect system, but what should be aimed for is as close a correlation as is practically possible.

1. Before cars, pedestrians (sighted and blind) walked the streets without fear for their lives.

2. Someone invents a car, and some (sighted) pedestrians turn into drivers.

3. So now, the blind pedestrian is forced to pay for infrastructure to minimize his chances of getting killed? Doesn't make sense to me.

It seems to me, that to 'opt out' of public services would render living conditions 'semi-troglodyte'.

I don't see this as being in anyone's benefit, least of all mine. Yet the 'libertarian argument' is to believe that some wealthy benefactor (or the notion that some 'Petey Punchclock' will voluntarily forgo his beer money so that some delivery driver doesn't run over a blind jay-walker in the black of night) would pay for the streetlight out of the goodness of his/her heart. I have my doubts.

Certainly that is not my version of libertarianism. Much of the critisism of libertarianism is that is not practical to implement. I would challenge that notion. Let's see an example: The GO train in the GTA charges fares based upon distance travelled and is voluntarily paid. The system is enforced by random inspections and fines are issued for riders without a paid ticket. The system works well and for the most part there is very little fare evasion. (I'll ignore for now the small amount of public funding the system gets) For me this is a model of a libetarian system. Why?

1. The user pays according to benefit (as measured by distance travelled)

2. The system is voluntary in that those who don't want to take the train don't pay.

3. Those who seek to benefit but not bear the cost are stongly and effectively disincented from doing so.

It is both efficient, and in my view fair.

[Renegade]

You can argue that the democratic system can be arbitrary and will be unfair to some individuals some of the time. However, the same problem exists in the free market economy: the rules are clear and applied equally to everyone yet some people will find that they get screwed by the market system because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you are willing accept arbitrariness in the market system then you should accept some arbitrariness in the democratic system provided the rules are clear and applied consistently.

I don't see a market system and a democracy to be mutually exclusive.

The issue I have with democracy is only some rights are protected. Should an indivudual have economic "rights" and should those be protected. Let me give you an example.

Let's say a population exist of 3 different largely homogenous groups. Group "A" is 40 % of the population. Group "B" and Group "C" are each 30% of the population. If the groups vote as a block, Group "A" will get to vote its govenment in 100% of the time. How about if Grouip "A" votes in a government which decides it should only tax Group "B" and "C" to pay for the costs of society? Are the economic rights of Group "B" and "C" protected?

[August1991]

Let's say hypothetically you can measure the individual beneift of a piece of infrastructure, would you then agree the cost should be allocated according to benefit?

Absolutely. But it's not so much that cost should be alloocated by benefit but rather the total level of benefit should be determined by how much cost each person would be willing to accept. (This is called a Lindahl equilibrium. Incidentally, I suspect that in the next century or so some smart people are going to devise mechanisms to measure each individual's willingness to pay for such government provided services. A Nobel Prize or two awaits them.)

For me it is hard to buy the argument that the blind should have to subsidize someone elses (drivers) proper use of the infrastructure because it benefits them by not getting run over. Let's walk through some simplified progression.

1. Before cars, pedestrians (sighted and blind) walked the streets without fear for their lives.

2. Someone invents a car, and some (sighted) pedestrians turn into drivers.

3. So now, the blind pedestrian is forced to pay for infrastructure to minimize his chances of getting killed? Doesn't make sense to me.

Your simple example assumes the blind people were there first, and for some reason you believe that this puts the cost on to the drivers. How about if I say that this a town in the Far North with only drivers, happily driving without traffic lights. Then a blind person shows up. Should the drivers still pay for the light? Or should it be the blind person (who came later)?

In a sense, the question is: who owns the street? (Or similarly, who has to pay for the streetlight?) It sounds strange to say but it doesn't matter if it's the drivers or the blind people as long as someone installs a traffic light. (BTW, this is known as the Coase theorem in case you are curious. It is only 45 years old.)

Of course, it is directly important to the drivers and the blind people who will assume the cost - but for society as a whole, what matters is that the streetlight is installed.

I think this discussion about whether a specific individual benefits from a specific type of a public infrastructure is moot.

This discussion is not moot at all. It's critical to understanding government.

A successful society will only undertake an activity (incur costs) when the activity adds value (net benefit) to society. There is no point in spending $1 billion to build a bridge between two Alaskan islands when the 1000 people who will use the bridge would gain greater benefit from having $1 million each.

At present, government has no way of putting accurate values on these decisions because people lie.

I am a 'democratic socialist', (though not the NSDAP variety) and believe that if majority will dictates that a thing is needed, all should pay. Mostly this is true, enough times at least, for me to support the notion.

By that logic, we could conceivably incur horrendous costs imposed on a few if the majority derives a small benefit.

Well, let's take the street light. Do you eat food? Well, delivery drivers need those streetlights to deliver product to markets safely. It keeps costs down.

Do you drink water? Well, city maintenance engineers sometimes need those streetlights to perform their job so you and I can have water.

It would be well nigh impossible to figure out exactly what yours or my benefit would be relative to the percentage of consumption of the lumens of that streetlight.

Nigh impossible? It's done now very well when I order in Chinese food. I have no idea what wholesale rice costs or the maintenance cost of a Chinese delivery car. No doubt though that these costs are incorporated into the total price of the Chinese dinner, delivered to my door.

Would it not be a more direct correlation of benefit to cost if the user of the infrastructure paid the cost and passed it on? Let's take your example if the delivery driver needed streetlights, the delivery company should share the cost of the streetlights. I would indirectly pay because my share of the cost is included in the cost of food.

Exactly.

The real issue is what unwritten contract exists between a society and the individuals in that society. In our society we have spelled out a number of rights that an individual has and set up institutions to protect those rights on behalf of individuals. In return for this collective protection, an individual has obligations to the society. These obligations include paying taxes to support social infrastructure that the individual may not have any use for.

You use the word "right" but I think you mean "entitlement" or "benefit".

I get the Chinese dinners I want because I voluntarily choose to buy them when the benefit is greater than the cost. It is unlikely that I get the streetlights I want because there is no mechanism to make me tell the truth about what cost I'd be willing to accept to have streetlights.

Riverwind, your reference to a social contract is an inexact process to assess costs (taxes) and benefits (rights).

[Renegade]

I usually use 'more civilized' because it slyly conveys a change (civilized, as in more like a city) without necessarily saying it's an improvement.

If by "civilized" you mean more like a city, I would say that there is far from universal concensus that that is a good thing.

Yes, such as roads. Not better for those who don't use roads, electricity etc. In other words great for the Unabomber types.

Leaving aside the negative conotations of the Unabomber aside, I don't think it's always a good thing that society (ie the governing power) unilaterally prescribes what is "good" for society and then forces the entire population to pay for it. There may be people who have no use for roads, electiricty, and water and prefer to live holed up in their shack in the woods. I'm not one of them, but I don't expect them to pay for my roads or electricity infrastructure.

I do admit that there are circumstances when there is no alternative but for the government to unilaterally decide upon an infrastructure, but in my view, when this is done the cost shoudl be allocated to the beneficiaries.

The half-dozen or so people who would end up controlling the whole world under this plan would do worse, I'll give you that.

You exaggerate. Everyone who overpays for infrastructure and programs would be better off. The minority who underpay would be worse off.

Exactly. And nature - for all its beauty - is constantly being negated by civilization. It's a natural thing to want to strike somebody when you're angry with them, but we have rules against that.

If your point is that what is natural is not necessarily "civilized", I say so be it. Let the fastest runner win the race, stop trying to cripple the fastest runner so the slower runners have a shot.

You're right - "fair" is too subjective. It creates a peace, maybe even a dull peace. I visited Cuba during the zenith of socialism there and it was very placid and very very dull.

Ultimately it isn't about fair. Your definition is different than mine, is different about someone elses. Our system lets the majority screw the minority and there is precious little the minority can do about it. Let's at least stop the pretense of calling it "fair"

[Riverwind]

Let's say a population exist of 3 different largely homogenous groups. Group "A" is 40 % of the population. Group "B" and Group "C" are each 30% of the population. If the groups vote as a block, Group "A" will get to vote its govenment in 100% of the time. How about if Grouip "A" votes in a government which decides it should only tax Group "B" and "C" to pay for the costs of society? Are the economic rights of Group "B" and "C" protected?

Democracies are rarely based on a simple majority rules for the reasons your describe. In Canada, we have three levels of governments with significant spending powers which help ensure the interests of geographically concentrated minorities are not as subject to the whims of the majority. Furthermore, if Group A starts being particularily unreasonable then Groups B and C could form a coalition.

[Renegade]

Let's say hypothetically you can measure the individual beneift of a piece of infrastructure, would you then agree the cost should be allocated according to benefit?

Absolutely. But it's not so much that cost should be alloocated by benefit but rather the total level of benefit should be determined by how much cost each person would be willing to accept. (This is called a Lindahl equilibrium. Incidentally, I suspect that in the next century or so some smart people are going to devise mechanisms to measure each individual's willingness to pay for such government provided services. A Nobel Prize or two awaits them.)

August, it is a facinating proposal. Assuming one could overcome the practical obstacles in finding measurement systems that could implement such a proposal, it would lead to some interesting cost allocations. Let me give an example. Let's say we were considering two people's marginal willingness to pay for the benefit of health insurance. One individual was very rich and could easily afford to cover any medical procedure necessary out of his own funds. The other individual is of modest means and pretty much needs health insurance to insure against ill health and the corresponding loss of income. To the rich individual the health insurance is only worth say $100. To the poor individual, the health insurance is worth considerably more, say $1000. Assuming all other things being equal, your proposal would have each of them pay $100 and $1000 respectively, despite the fact they receive the same benefit. Is that what you intend?

For me it is hard to buy the argument that the blind should have to subsidize someone elses (drivers) proper use of the infrastructure because it benefits them by not getting run over. Let's walk through some simplified progression.

Your simple example assumes the blind people were there first, and for some reason you believe that this puts the cost on to the drivers. How about if I say that this a town in the Far North with only drivers, happily driving without traffic lights. Then a blind person shows up. Should the drivers still pay for the light? Or should it be the blind person (who came later)?

I could understand your logic if the cars only needed lights to avoid hitting blind people, but that is not the case. The cars need it to avoid hitting blind people and everything else which might be in the roadway, or even to see the roadway clearly.

In your scenario above, I would expect that the streetlights would be up in the town in the Far North long before the blind arrived as it would be a necessary part of the infrastructure for operating cars at night. So, yes, the drivers would still have borne the cost.

In a sense, the question is: who owns the street? (Or similarly, who has to pay for the streetlight?) It sounds strange to say but it doesn't matter if it's the drivers or the blind people as long as someone installs a traffic light. (BTW, this is known as the Coase theorem in case you are curious. It is only 45 years old.)

Of course, it is directly important to the drivers and the blind people who will assume the cost - but for society as a whole, what matters is that the streetlight is installed.

Yes, that is true that from a big picture society only cares that it is installed, but in practical terms unless society adequately address the issue of who bears the cost frequently the streetlight will never get built. I think you have already pointed this out.

[Renegade]

Democracies are rarely based on a simple majority rules for the reasons your describe. In Canada, we have three levels of governments with significant spending powers which help ensure the interests of geographically concentrated minorities are not as subject to the whims of the majority. Furthermore, if Group A starts being particularily unreasonable then Groups B and C could form a coalition.

The situation is worse than you describe. In almost every case in Canada it is not the majority which elects the government, it is the largest minority which does so. I did not suggest that the groups were geographic groupings, they could easily be racial, religious, devided along socio-economic or political lines. So I can't agree that a three levels of government can address the issues of a majority or large minority imposing its will on the rest.

In the simple example I gave, you state that B and C could form a coalition. What if the percentage was that A was 51% of the population? Is C screwed 100% of the time?

The fact is in our Constitution we protect the rights of the individual. This protects the minority from oppressive laws passed by the majority on many issues such as racial discrimmination. The problem is that there is no such protection for the economic interest of the minority.

Let's hypothetically say in 15 years all boomers retire and now make up a huge portion of the population. Suppose they vote as a block and can control who assumes power. Can they elect a governmetn which imposes punative taxes upon the employed in order to fund generous retiree health and public pension benefits? Under our system, sure they can.

[Riverwind]

Let's hypothetically say in 15 years all boomers retire and now make up a huge portion of the population. Suppose they vote as a block and can control who assumes power. Can they elect a governmetn which imposes punative taxes upon the employed in order to fund generous retiree health and public pension benefits? Under our system, sure they can.

I agree the system we have now is very bad a protecting the interests of geographically distributed minorities. However, that is a problem caused by the FPP system we have in this country and could be addressed with a move to a system of proportional representation.

[Renegade]

Let's hypothetically say in 15 years all boomers retire and now make up a huge portion of the population. Suppose they vote as a block and can control who assumes power. Can they elect a governmetn which imposes punative taxes upon the employed in order to fund generous retiree health and public pension benefits? Under our system, sure they can.

I agree the system we have now is very bad a protecting the interests of geographically distributed minorities. However, that is a problem caused by the FPP system we have in this country and could be addressed with a move to a system of proportional representation.

At the heart of Libertarianism is the respect for individual rights. I am not convinced that even in a PR system, the economic interest of the minority are protected against bullying by the majority. I would much rather see those protections enshrined in a constitution, much like our other rights are. Then, no matter what electorial system we have, the individual rights are respected.

[Michael Hardner]

I do admit that there are circumstances when there is no alternative but for the government to unilaterally decide upon an infrastructure, but in my view, when this is done the cost shoudl be allocated to the beneficiaries.

The costs of micro managing all of these diverse projects would dwarf the benefits, IMO. The US economy would not have been built without the force of government, taking taxes and using them for what they saw to benefit their country.

The interstate highway system, for example, made it possible to distribute goods and engendered growth in many related industries - cars, tourism, heavy machinery. No piecemeal system of roads could have produced that. That also goes for many other large projects funded and pushed through by the government.

[Riverwind]

At the heart of Libertarianism is the respect for individual rights. I am not convinced that even in a PR system, the economic interest of the minority are protected against bullying by the majority.

Why are you concerned about about individuals being bullied by the majority yet have little no concern about the majority being bullied by a minority with money and/or land? The constitution must provide a balance between the right of society (i.e. the right of the majority) and the rights of the individual. My problem with Libertarism is it refuses to recognize that society has rights too that deserve to be respected as well.

[Renegade]

The costs of micro managing all of these diverse projects would dwarf the benefits, IMO. The US economy would not have been built without the force of government, taking taxes and using them for what they saw to benefit their country.

The interstate highway system, for example, made it possible to distribute goods and engendered growth in many related industries - cars, tourism, heavy machinery. No piecemeal system of roads could have produced that.

MH, there are more options today then when highways were initially built. For example, the 407 highway, while initially built with public funds, those funds were recovered (and more) when the highway was sold. It did not require the forced taxation to build public infrastructure as in the past.

There is now a measurement system in place which allocates cost to beneift. While this measurement system would not have been possible in the past, it is today.

That also goes for many other large projects funded and pushed through by the government.

It is also true that the whole US military industry and miliatary infrastructure was built by the forcible taxation and the use by the government of what they saw as a benefit to the country. Individual citizens were not given an option on if they thought their taxes ought to fund nuclear bombs, and wars in Vietnam or Iraq. I leave it to you to decide if this was really a "benefit" to society as a whole.

[Renegade]

At the heart of Libertarianism is the respect for individual rights. I am not convinced that even in a PR system, the economic interest of the minority are protected against bullying by the majority.

Why are concerned about about individuals being bullied by the majority yet have little no concern about the majority being bullied by a minority with money and/or land?

I'm less concerned with it because I don't see such bullying occuring. In our system, the majority have the power. If the rich minority had ultimate power, they would no doubt give themselves a free ride. Tax statistics prove that they don't have a free pass and pay a disproportonate share of the costs of society.

The constitution must provide a balance between the right of society (i.e. the right of the majority) and the rights of the individual. My problem with Libertarism is it refuses to recognize that society has rights too that deserve to be respected as well.

RW, maybe you can spell out what specific rights you think that society has which deserve to be respected, and I can try and address that.