What do you like about the State?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why are free-rider situations problems that need to be solved?? I've never understood this. If I spend money landscaping my front yard, why do I care that my neighbor's house value goes up a bit?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not an example of an economic free-rider problem. In your example, you build a house and your neighbor benefits. In other words, you got what you want (a better house). In a free-rider problem, no one gets what they want because the inability to exclude non-payers from the benefits makes it irrational to do it.

For example, suppose that rather than landscaping your front yard, you were considering landscaping the really ugly entrance to your cul-de-sac. The current entrance is all covered in weeds and has a big polluted puddle and stray garbage. If you were to spend $10,000 on that cleanup then the value of your property would go up by $12,000. So it's a no brainer, except that all of your neighbor's houses would go up by $12,000 even though they don't contribute for the renovation. For each of them, it would individually be profitable to do the renovation, but nobody actually does - they all stand around and look at each other and say "why in the heck should I lay out all the money when you all get the benefit too?" The inability to prevent the free-riders from getting the benefit leads people to inaction. Everybody would be much better off if they all put in a few thousand dollars and increased the value of their homes, but so long as there is no way to exclude others from the benefit then no one will actually do anything. Everyone ends up worse off because of the free-riders.

That is the free-rider problem. The state could fix it by ordering everybody to participate in the renovation project or be trampled by jackbooted thugs. Or an assurance contract would do it, whatever is more convenient.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd rather have $0 than $2000? Yes, that does appear to be a "problem".

Now, why is it my responsibility to fix this problem for you?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
So you'd rather have $0 than $2000? Yes, that does appear to be a "problem".

[/ QUOTE ]

No - I'd rather have more than $2,000, which is what I would have if everybody put in a slice of the cost associated with the benefit they are going to earn.

But, if it makes you happier, replace the numbers with:

Cost = $10,000
Marginal value to each home owner = $8,000
Number of home owners = 10
Members acting individually = -$2,000, so no one will rationally take that action.
Members acting collectively = +$7,000

Life would be better for them if they acted together. If they act exclusively in their individual interests they don't land on the optimal solution. There has to be some kind of centralization force, be it a state or some other body, that assesses the collective situation and communicates the collective solution for improved results to the individuals.

Now, a group of ten homeowners located together like this could probably figure out the best solution themselves, but the free-rider problem can arise on a much large scale where individuals may not be able to assess the global affects of their local actions.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, why is it my responsibility to fix this problem for you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because if you can't see the global affects of your local actions, how do you know that you are creating the optimal solution (even for you)? I'm not talking about you fixing my problem - I'm talking about us fixing our problem. We will always have common problems to the extent that we share common resources, and the problems can be especially problematic to solve when there are free-riders.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
-badass taxing power avoids free-rider problems

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are free-rider situations problems that need to be solved?? I've never understood this. If I spend money landscaping my front yard, why do I care that my neighbor's house value goes up a bit?

I guess you're talking about something like roads where no one person would be able to afford to build the road on their own. Well, that's what corporations and investment capital are for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incidently, thanks to everyone who replied to my question. I read all the answers. Sorry for the hit and run - I had to go to a meeting.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
-uniform and generally fair criminal laws
-ditto business laws
-badass taxing power avoids free-rider problems
-ability to enact egalitarian programs protects society and capitalism from revolt by the underclasses

[/ QUOTE ]

Not gonna disagree with 1, 2 or 4 as they're largely opinion and unprovable either way, but I'd say 3 is the exact opposite of true. Almost all the poor are free riders.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
...that Nielsio will enlist in the Army...

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol'd at this.

Anyway, I'm not sure how many of us are state lovers. I view it as a necessary evil that is guilty of many of the things you guys bring up. I don't feel like proclaiming its greatness, I'm just of the opinion that a stateless society without a drastic change in human nature will worsen the human condition.

You're dismissing #1 for the wrong reasons that we argue it. It's not about the inefficiency of state monopolies, it's the free-rider and competing authority issues. Some of us think they're relevent, and are skeptical that a market solution would work. You guys don't. Been there, done that.

[ALawPoker]

I like the state for its consistency and uniformity.

I also like compromising a preference for the sake of having more combined force to defend the set of preferences. If states did not exist, people would still desire to defend their preferences. People would recognize that coalitions are the best way to do this. People would still have to compromise. The state provides a simple and effortless way for this to happen, and despite its inherent inefficiency, I like that this is taken care of for me. It allows me to worry about other things.

I'm about as libertarian as they come. I make a living playing poker, smoke ***, jack off to the thought of capitalism -- basically any demographic you can point to, that's me. But I recognize that stuff as nothing more than my preferences. Even if I can argue that the free market is inherently more efficient than a regulated market, I'm still making the assumption that efficient production is more important than equality. Someone who values equality would have an easy answer to "love" the state -- without uniform standards and regulations, their ideal of equality could not be met.

I don't personally like anything that the state happens to do, but that's because I prefer a total lack of interference in my life and don't care much what other people do with theirs. So there is nothing the state possibly *could* do that I would appreciate. Human nature though, is to coexist. Other people's preferences will be forced upon me. And I'd rather it be done with a state than without one (for the aforementioned convenience and consistency). It doesn't bother me that the state exists because I benefit a lot from coexisting with other human beings, and I see the state as simply a loose reflection of the preferences that would be exerted on me anyways.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Gov't is good because it defends us/fights fires/builds roads etc. You mean gov't is the best at something it monopolizes? Really? I guess you could make some sort of a case here but it won't be easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also...

If you're going to dismiss that stuff as a weak argument of why the state is good, then you have to weaken stuff like taxation and war violence in an argument of why the state is bad. The state has a monopoly (or at least, a saturated market share) on those things too. You can't assume that in the absence of a state privatized theft would not increase to satisfy the preference that taxes are currently reflecting.

I don't disagree with your point that these are weak arguments, but just pointing out the other side of the standard you are proposing.

[xorbie]

I like the state because it gives a bit of rigidity and more permanent status to the solution to common goods problems. That's about it.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Gov't is good because it defends us/fights fires/builds roads etc. You mean gov't is the best at something it monopolizes? Really? I guess you could make some sort of a case here but it won't be easy.


[/ QUOTE ] Why would this be hard? Why would we even have to make the case when experience has lead every democratic society in the world to do it this way, and have the majority prefer it done by gov't? Why, when people prefer the market alternative, are their preferences sacred, but when they prefer the gov't alternative, their preferences must be demonstrated to be correct by your standard? Why do we have to defend these things when it is unlikely, to say the least, that all small businesses and individuals would be able to afford private fire or police and the myriad costly kinds of property rights protections that are currently provided by gov't?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Gov't is good because it defends us/fights fires/builds roads etc. You mean gov't is the best at something it monopolizes? Really? I guess you could make some sort of a case here but it won't be easy.


[/ QUOTE ] Why would this be hard? Why would we even have to make the case when experience has lead every democratic society in the world to do it this way, and have the majority prefer it done by gov't? Why, when people prefer the market alternative, are their preferences sacred, but when they prefer the gov't alternative, their preferences must be demonstrated to be correct by your standard? Why do we have to defend these things when it is unlikely, to say the least, that all small businesses and individuals would be able to afford private fire or police and the myriad costly kinds of property rights protections that are currently provided by gov't?

[/ QUOTE ]


You're missing a small detail. Namely: the degree that people don't want the state is the degree to which they are threatened and forced to comply.

If people wanted all this stuff, there wouldn't be the need to force people. *Just like voluntary interactions in the market; you don't see Walmart shooting competition*.