[edanm]

A few of these points are interesting, because things don't have to be that way (e.g. various government-granted monopolies).

But most of these points are uninteresting, in the sense that I cannot easily imagine alternatives. Public goods are a simple example - there's an economic reason it is not possible to let people opt-out of public goods: you can't not protect some people, so it is in their interest to opt-out and receive protection anyway. So everyone will opt-out.

I have a lot of respect for jacquesmattheij, and I love posts that make us reconsider basic assumptions of our society and decide whether they're good or not. Even as a philsophical exercise and without a practical angle, it's interesting. But most of the complaints here don't come with an alternative, so what are we supposed to do with them?

[snitko]

May I refer you to David D. Friedman and Murray Rothbard for explanations of how public property would be so much better off as private property and how protection can be both private and optional? I mean you can disagree after reading it, but at least you wouldn't say there's no alternative.

[edanm]

Sure, and thanks. I'm not very well-read in economy but am working on it.

Do you have anything specific of theirs in mind?

[snitko]

"For a New Liberty" by Murray Rothbard and "The Machinery Of Freedom" by David D. Friedman.