3 votes

Can Private Communities Provide "Public" Goods? My interview with Fred Foldvary.

In this episode of the Lions of Liberty Podcast, I am joined by Fred Foldvary, economics lecturer at San Jose State University, to discuss his work “Public Good and Private Communities: The Market Provision of Social Services.” Fred explains how he took the philosophy of Georgism and took it a step further by combining it with libertaran ideas, and coined the term “geo-libertarianism”. Mr. Foldvary details how private communities have developed to provide the type of “public” services that many often presume require an overreaching, coercive government to efficiently obtain. We then examine several modern examples of these private communities, including the most well-known private community in the world: Walt Disney World.

For more podcasts like this head over to the Lions of Liberty Podcast Archive!

Remember, you can subscribe to the show via iTunes or the Stitcher Radio App, and you can even listen to a live stream every Friday night at 7PM EST on DAILY PAUL RADIO!!!!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

looking forward

Looking forward to listening to this one

Comments while listening

Stop at time 1:24

Comment:

This link is a similar, competitive, free market, offer offered to supply to the demand for liberty:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/joe-ca-san-berdo-

Stop at time 1:57

Comment:

People use the word government as a synonym for crime (crime hidden behind a false front of authority) and if that is the meaning intended by the user of the word, then why don't they stop contradicting themselves: why not use the word crime if that is the meaning intended with the word?

Are you contradicting yourself too?

Stop at time 2:28

Comment:

Claiming that someone else says something, such as we need government (crime) to stop crime (government), is prima facia (on its face) a contradiction, so who then is making these claims?

1.
Those who know it is a lie, and willfully lie (mens rea)

2.
Those who are fooled by the lie, and they have no clue that they are driven by the lie. (actus reus)

3.
Those who have no use for the lie, other than to show someone that it is a lie on its face, with an intent to clue the believer of the lie in on the fact that they are being fooled, or to expose the liar as a liar, since the liar knows that the liar is lying.

Which are you?

Stop tome 2:56

Comment:

The speaker is still speaking about what other people say, and therefore the fact that the speaker does, or does not, employ the word government as a synonym for crime is not yet known. I can listen further to find out the facts, one way or the other.

Stop at 3:03

Perhaps a point of confession was offered in those words I heard in that broadcast by that speaker. Does the speaker think that coercive government MUST exist in order to defend against criminals who will perpetrate crimes in the absence of coercive governments such as are exemplified with courts and police?

My guess is that the speaker is fooled by the lie. Without actually discussing what the speaker does, or does not think, or believe, the establishment of said thoughts or beliefs are not knowable by me at this point.

I will stop at this point and move onto other things.

http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/

Joe

Comments

"Stop at time 1:24

Comment:

This link is a similar, competitive, free market, offer offered to supply to the demand for liberty:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/joe-ca-san-berdo-"

Is this your show? I will give it a listen sometime!

"Stop at time 1:57

Comment:

People use the word government as a synonym for crime (crime hidden behind a false front of authority) and if that is the meaning intended by the user of the word, then why don't they stop contradicting themselves: why not use the word crime if that is the meaning intended with the word?

Are you contradicting yourself too?"

Well, people do use the word government as a synonym for crime - mostly libertarians. The average Joe (pun unintended) does not, either because they don't see the crimes - they don't see the "hidden gun" (it's hidden after all!) - and do not associate the word "government" with crime. This is why I try to use the distinction of "coercive government" .

We don't have this in any modern sense, but in a free society people would be free to freely associate- which means they could form any type of organization they want, including a "government". This type of government would have to be one that respects natural rights. So I think the terms are important, but I try to emphasize the meaning and principle behind them. This doesn't mean I'm always successful of course...

"Stop at time 2:28

Comment:

Claiming that someone else says something, such as we need government (crime) to stop crime (government), is prima facia (on its face) a contradiction, so who then is making these claims?

1.
Those who know it is a lie, and willfully lie (mens rea)

2.
Those who are fooled by the lie, and they have no clue that they are driven by the lie. (actus reus)

3.
Those who have no use for the lie, other than to show someone that it is a lie on its face, with an intent to clue the believer of the lie in on the fact that they are being fooled, or to expose the liar as a liar, since the liar knows that the liar is lying.

Which are you?"

Again, I am more trying to give the perspective of those who commonly argue against liberty or simply haven't given thought to the ideas. Most people simply "assume" we need this coercive institution to "protect us from ourselves"

The use of the word "government" is confusing to many, and I think it's a major problem within libertarianism. It is not "government" that is the problem, it is tyranny and a lack of respect for and understanding of individual rights. Of course, most modern governments take the form of tyranny, and most people do not demand a respect for individual rights.

"Stop tome 2:56

Comment:

The speaker is still speaking about what other people say, and therefore the fact that the speaker does, or does not, employ the word government as a synonym for crime is not yet known. I can listen further to find out the facts, one way or the other."

See above, no further comment needed here.

"Stop at 3:03

Perhaps a point of confession was offered in those words I heard in that broadcast by that speaker. Does the speaker think that coercive government MUST exist in order to defend against criminals who will perpetrate crimes in the absence of coercive governments such as are exemplified with courts and police?

My guess is that the speaker is fooled by the lie. Without actually discussing what the speaker does, or does not think, or believe, the establishment of said thoughts or beliefs are not knowable by me at this point.

I will stop at this point and move onto other things."

This is one point of my show that , when I relistened to it, I could tell that it didn't come across quite as a meant it. It could come across, as you noted, as thinking the coercive government is necessary. If you've listened to any of my others or seen my writing around here you would know that I certainly do not believe that, in fact I believe that all coercion is tyranny in this sense.

What I meant with that point was the institutions of justice *are* necessary - many of the "services" provided by government - catching criminals, providing protection - would still be needed in a free society. In that society the definition of "criminal" would be much broader, and people would associate with these institutions voluntary (except for the actual, rights-infringing criminal).

Hope this clears some things up ,and thanks for listening.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Accurate accounting

If there is a demand for accurate accounting and there is no supply, what happens to the demand?

"We don't have this in any modern sense, but in a free society people would be free to freely associate- which means they could form any type of organization they want, including a "government"."

I think that you are mistaken, or the words you use are not managing to convey the accurate account from you to me.

Taking a step back:

"This is why I try to use the distinction of "coercive government" ."

If it is crime, and if the demand is to supply to the demand for an accurate account, then the accurate word is that it is a crime, not a "coercive government."

Who is paying such a high price so as to get their well covered crimes perpetrated by criminals who are paid so well for that supply the readily supplied supply offered to meet that demand?

Who supplies the covering?

Calling criminals anything other than criminals is, in an accurate accounting, a cover up.

The criminals extort by fraud and threat of aggressive violence, backed up by demonstrations of horrendous violence upon massive numbers of innocent people and you call that "coercive government?"

I don't. I actually ran for congress in 1996, as a Libertarian, so called, and my message was an accurate accounting.

There is now, compared to then, a higher demand, by many accurate accounts, for genuine government (accurate accounting) rather than the false, counterfeit, supply so well covered by those who cover it up so well.

"This type of government would have to be one that respects natural rights."

Crimes, not "this type of government" out in the open, not covered up by false, inaccurate, cover stories, like "coercive government," are perpetrated by criminals, knowing which one did what to who when is a goal to be reached for, if there was a demand for such accurate accounting.

Knowing who did what to who when where why and how, rather than blaming what those criminals do on a nebulous fictional entity is competitive, in that type of market.

If the market is to know, then the higher quality and lower cost supplier offers the accurate account. Each individual, not "the market" make the market, not the other way around, not this nebulous thing that wants, thinks, does, and is accounted as the responsible one, the government did it, the gun did it, the pointed stick did it, right there, look, there is it, blame it, meanwhile the actual criminals are not accounted for accurately for some odd reason that no one knows?

Except you and me of course, and I'm not so sure about me.

"This doesn't mean I'm always successful of course..."

I did not manage to purchase my seat in Congress either; however my return on my investment still pays dividends.

"Again, I am more trying to give the perspective of those who commonly argue against liberty or simply haven't given thought to the ideas. Most people simply "assume" we need this coercive institution to "protect us from ourselves""

Devils advocate? I often have a hard time figuring out if the devil's advocate has a hidden agenda. Covering up the obvious?

Criminals like to perpetrate their crimes under the cover of a false front, and so they figure out ways to get advocates?

"Of course, most modern governments take the form of tyranny, and most people do not demand a respect for individual rights."

Case in point. If there can be a demand for an accurate accounting concerning "most modern governments," then there would be at least one on the list.

I'll try one.

http://www.hermes-press.com/iceland_index.htm

That modern example of government, so called, managed to supply an accurate accounting after some trouble.

There is more to that story then Modern Times, you probably are aware of that history.

I can link anyway.

https://notendur.hi.is//~bthru/runolfsson2.pdf

If the demand is for accurate accounting then the supply meeting that demand is either better or worse as time goes by, and if the demand is for false accounting then what happens?

If the supply is counterfeit and the people producing anything worth stealing are fooled into abject belief in the lie, without question, that government is crime, then we all become devil's advocates?

"If you've listened to any of my others or seen my writing around here you would know that I certainly do not believe that, in fact I believe that all coercion is tyranny in this sense."

My offer is accurate accounting, no demand, no sale.

Crime is defined by the criminals, and they lie often, so the lie may be such that the targets are led to call what the criminals are doing something other than crime.

Is that an accurate accounting?

"What I meant with that point was the institutions of justice *are* necessary - many of the "services" provided by government - catching criminals, providing protection - would still be needed in a free society. In that society the definition of "criminal" would be much broader, and people would associate with these institutions voluntary (except for the actual, rights-infringing criminal)."

Example 1, not the best, but a free market principle at work, Liberty if you will, was, is, and probably will continue to be an imperfect example.

How about example 2?

http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html

There are more examples, so the concept isn't a conspiracy theory.

Joe

Josf

I've trid to respond in depth on my iPad 3 times, but I end up answering a text and having the page reload and erase my comments, so I will attempt to reply later when I can sit down and type.

But thanks for listening and commenting!

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Thanks

That sounds good, and if you find value in the information I can offer, and I you, we could schedule a broadcast interview?

Joe