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