Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Comments on Libertarianism
Message-ID: <1859@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Dec-84 01:17:15 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.1859
Posted: Mon Dec  3 01:17:15 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Dec-84 03:18:46 EST
Lines: 67
Nf-ID: #R:ptsfa:-37500:inmet:7800205:000:3500
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Dec  1 15:51:00 1984

>***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus /  8:11 pm  Nov 30, 1984
>> 
>> If we all "know & love" them, then they would pay for them. If people
>> refused to pay for them, then they must not "know & love" them. There would
>> probably be a short period of confusion while people sorted out which of
>> the government functions they actually were willing to pay for, but society
>> wouldn't disappear.
>
>Here we have a simple argument from the goodness of human nature -- if
>you want public education, for instance, and you don't have to pay for it,
>you will anyway even though you know that there are a lot of people who
>also want it and also might pay for it. People just don't think that way --
>they want something done that is for the public good, but they won't pay
>for it unless they know that everybody else is paying their fair share
>too. You can't rebuild society unless you rebuild human nature first...
>
>	Wayne

Here we have a simple argument, utterly uninformed by experience.

Non-universal charities ABOUND.  Just for example, the recent
listener-supported radio fund raising drive for a Boston station was fond
of pointing out that only about 20% of their listeners contribute.  The
remaining 80% benefit from the station, too.  Presumably, the 20% (or whatever
it turned out to be) who contributed this year count as "people", even
though they contributed in the face of this statistic.

In fact, Wayne,  you'll find that almost all arts activities are
not supported by getting a "fair share" from all of those people they serve.

You'll find a similar pattern, I think, in donations to the Salvation
Army -- not all of those who wish the homeless to be fed give, but
enough give to enable them to work.

Even were it true that "[people] won't pay for [a public good] unless
they know that everybody else is paying their fair share too", one
needn't involve government.  David Friedman suggests the following
scheme in the case of a dam that would benefit all dwellers in a 
valley:  The potential builder visits each family.  To each, he suggests
that they sign a pledge to pay $x if everybody else will pay their
share (everybody's share is to be public knowledge, presumably on the pledge,
so that each family can judge if they're being overcharged 
with respect to others, and refuse to sign -- this means that
the builder has to be pretty careful about fairness) 
which will vary, according to how much the dam benefits them.

The pledge might specify a certain level of participation, but for simplicity's
sake, let's assume that it says EVERYBODY must contribute, and that the
amounts are roughly fair.

Each landholder now has a choice -- refuse to sign, in which case the
dam does NOT get built, and he loses the benefits he'd get from the dam,
or sign, and pay NOTHING if someone else refuses to sign (in which case
he only the opportunity cost of spending that money during the pledge period)
or pay what the builder has defined as his likely benefit (and know that
everyone else will have to pay, too).  Actual agreements of this sort
will probably have thresholds (80% must pay), and provisions for 
what happens if people who pledge refuse to pay.

Note the lack of treasury agents with guns forcing you into a deal that you
didn't want.

As for your notion that you can't rebuild society without rebuilding
human nature, I'm not sure what you mean by that, but 
the implication is that industrialization rebuilt human nature, because
it sure rebuilt society.