Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!laura
From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Public Goods--econ lesson for renner, glosser
Message-ID: <4582@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 4-Nov-84 21:29:48 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.4582
Posted: Sun Nov  4 21:29:48 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Nov-84 21:29:48 EST
References: <450@wucs.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 37

Paul,
	Only a consequentialist would worry about whether the disired
consequences would arise from his political philosophy. Non-consequentialists
do not find this dubious at all -- as you well know. 

This does not answer the real question of public goods -- how to decide
whether we should produce any at all. Under laissez-faire capitalism 
there is no particular problem with this decision; somebody just decides
to produce these goods or doesn't as the case may be.

When you get into government production of public goods, however, the
case of ``what to produce'' is of great importance. Even if a
government production of nuclear weapons is most ``pareto economical''
this fact will mean little to those who are totally opposed to nuclear
weapons of all sorts.

Calculating the benefit of a public good may be impossible. Saying that
``the actual benefit of an electrical company is XX due to pollution
effects'' is misleading. In any pollution talks there are always people
who think that they have been damaged a great deal and other people who
feel that the damage is slight. Still others feel that the damage is
significant, but well worth paying because of the other effects of the
industry.

Any figure that you come up with will have to be some person's opinion 
of the value of the public good. Assuming that I have the pollution rights
to my own land, I could make an industry pay when their pollution
increased beyond what I felt was acceptable. (This, of course, assumes
that I can objectively prove that they are polluting that much in the
first place. Crying wolf is not allowed.)

If I do not have the pollution rights of my own land, I may get stuck
with what somebody else's opinion. Given that opinions can be bought,
either by cash or by votes, this prospect does not please me.

Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura