danw@oliven.UUCP (danw) (10/11/84)
[] A QUESTION Is liberty (a) a scarce good or (b) a free good? To explain: A scarce good is that which exists only in a limited degree and is subject to destruction by external forces; enlightened constitutional government is one means of preserving liberty, which would vanish in the chaos of anarchy. A free good is something that is always available to everyone; therefore, government functions as a barrier between us and it; if government were removed, liberty would result. danw
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (10/13/84)
> [] > A QUESTION > > Is liberty (a) a scarce good or (b) a free good? > > To explain: A scarce good is that which exists only in > a limited degree and is subject to destruction by external > forces; enlightened constitutional government is one means of > preserving liberty, which would vanish in the chaos of anarchy. > > A free good is something that is always available to > everyone; therefore, government functions as a barrier between > us and it; if government were removed, liberty would result. > danw Ask yourself this: do animals in the wild have liberty? They don't have many rights (at least ones that are respected by other animals). Then ask yourself, what is the difference between us and wild animals? (The answer is, or course, that we have a government.) But seriously, first we should decide: what is liberty? Being able to do what we want? Being able to do what we want, as long as it is not preventing people from doing what they want? Being able to do most of the things we want, the price of this being not being able to do the rest of them? That goes a long way towards deciding whether government promotes or hinders liberty... Wayne
glosser@ut-ngp.UUCP (glosser) (10/14/84)
If you want to argue it is a good, it is not the same type of good you had in mind. If I were to call liberty a good, it would be an externality. An externality, according to Nobel Laureate in Economics, Kenneth Arrow, "...are goods, they are commodities; they have real pratical, economic value; thet increase the efficiency of the system, enable you to produce more goods or more of wwhatever values you hold in high esteem. But they are not commodities for which trade on the open market is technically possible or even meaningful." It is because of such externalities that markets break down. If you had to put a price on liberty (in terms of dollars or any other currency) would you really have liberty? Given the struggles we all hear about for obtaining liberty, it seems liberty is not a free good either. If you want to argue that liberty is a good and can be allocated, something more than a market is needed for this accomplishment Other ways can be through government, religion, or any other type of collective action that seeks to allocate goods using non market methods. Hence the issue (if you believe liberty is a good) is: given the conflict between social claims and individual self interest, how should liberty be allocated? Given that the market is not capable of resolving such a conflict, what other social institutions are capable for accomplishing such a task? In conclusion, I would like to point out the major drawback of this response. It is not clear what liberty actually means. Further, I argue, it is not possible to define such a vague concept.
glosser@ut-ngp.UUCP (glosser) (10/14/84)
<> I would like to point out that in my previous posting, the quote from Kenneth Arrow as well as the basis to my argument can be found in: Kenneth Arrow THE LIMITS to ORGANIZATION published by W.W. Norton Company, New York. 1974 See especially the first essay, "Rationality: Individual and Social". Stuart Glosser