To force payment without consent is not only a violation of rights, it destroys value rather than creating it. (Force sunders the valuer from his ability to choose what to value.) Voluntary payments are the only moral way to fund such projects, because forced payments can never be justified. Therefore charity, or a voluntary means of payment for financing a project should invariably hold some sort of benefit for the payer himself. If they do not see a benefit then there is no valid moral reason for them to do so. If the patrons see a benefit, direct or indirect, in their funding of such projects then it is in their interests to donate to them. Thus these projects are financed by people who think that it is in their self-interest to finance them. Objectivist ethics hold that rational self-interest (which may often be indirect) is the correct basis for all action. (It is a far worse scenario when those that are paying are not allowed to reap benefits.) In this case, some may be reaping benefits without paying, but they are hurting no one. As long as those who bear the costs reap the benefits they wanted, their investment is a worthwhile one to them (or they would not have financed the projects in the first place).
#Free rider problem free
If the actions that create the externality are actions taken in a free environment and in good faith, then the indirect benefits to others are not unjust to those that bore the cost. (I suggest you write to the Mises Institute at if you have a more specific interest in the Misean view of the matter). I'm afraid I am unfamiliar with views of the Austrian School and Ludwig von Mises, so I cannot comment on their specific treatment of the matter. (Nor is there any certainty that the government could accomplish this). They occur in the natural course of economic activity and there is no need for any sort of governmental intervention to "correct" them.
(founder and president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute) externalities can be subjective, as costs and benefits may well be viewed differently by different people. Perhaps the real question is, wouldn't self-interest encourage me not to donate, as long as enough other people do?Īnswer: According to L.H. Question: What is the Objectivist point of view on positive externalities? Is charity truly the only moral way to fund projects whose costs are less than anonymous benefits?
0 kommentar(er)
