Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Re: Logic, fact, preference [Part 1] Message-ID: <777@mmintl.UUCP> Date: Tue, 5-Nov-85 12:41:38 EST Article-I.D.: mmintl.777 Posted: Tue Nov 5 12:41:38 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 8-Nov-85 08:25:44 EST References: <306@umich.UUCP> <28200255@inmet.UUCP> Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT Lines: 22 In article <28200255@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: >>> There's a rough problem here. How to weigh my dislike of being >>> coerced against other peoples dislike of losing a public good? >>> [Nat Howard] >> >>The other people in the above scenario are not losing a "public >>good", but a personal material benefit. >> Baba > >As I see it, the other people in the above scenario are losing BOTH a >public good (the public good will be undersupplied because >of a free-rider situation) and the personal material benefits >that would result from the correct supply of public goods. > >Am I missing something, here? No, Baba is. A "public good" *is* a personal material benefit. What makes it a public good is the nature of its distribution. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108