danw@oliven.UUCP (danw) (11/14/84)
[] > In figure 2, we consider what >would probably happen if national defense were supplied entirely through >voluntary contributions (no taxes). Hardcore patriots contribute some, >but others prefer to "ride free" on the contributions of the former. >The demand curve D(p) reflects the private benefits to the patriots; >where it intersects the marginal cost curve will determine the amount >of defense provided (Q(p)). The demand schedule D(s) reflects the >social benefits of consumption, which include private benefits plus >positive externalities (D(x)). Because no coercive mechanism is used >to prevent free-riding, the amount of defense provided falls far short >of the socially optimal (i.e., efficient) quantitiy.[sic] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This person seems to have an excellent knowledge of economics, the graphs and equations however do a terrific job of comparing apples with oranges. One does not need differential equations to realize that voluntary contributions would not even begin to cover the cost of the US's huge military machine. There is even some question as to whether involuntary taxation is capable of providing the massive sums required. Our taxes are collected under the not so valed threat of force. Even with this 'incentive' there is a taxpayers revolt brewing,(there are limits to what people in a relatively free society are willing to pay for a standing army in peacetime.) The military needs of a libertarian society are totally different from the requirements of an expansionist interventionist society. To propose using the fund raising abilities of the former to satisfy the vast ambitions of the latter is ludicrous in the extreme. danw