31.01.2013 Views

The Privatization of Roads and Highways - Ludwig von Mises Institute

The Privatization of Roads and Highways - Ludwig von Mises Institute

The Privatization of Roads and Highways - Ludwig von Mises Institute

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Public Goods <strong>and</strong> Externalities: <strong>The</strong> Case <strong>of</strong> <strong>Roads</strong> 127<br />

Can we, as strictly value-free economists, conclude that the<br />

government will maximize utility by so acting? I submit that we<br />

cannot. We cannot, unless, in addition to all the facts heret<strong>of</strong>ore<br />

presented, we assume that none <strong>of</strong> the one-hundred people will<br />

resent being forced to contribute to the scheme via compulsory<br />

taxes. And this we have no reason to do. In other words, even<br />

while maintaining the assumption that each person values his<br />

benefits from the project at $10, <strong>and</strong> that each realizes that the<br />

government’s plan will cost him as well as everyone else) only<br />

$.50, it is still conceivable that a person will so resent being forced<br />

to do something, even “for his own good,” that the costs to him<br />

will vastly exceed the $9.50 gain he st<strong>and</strong>s to capture.<br />

To deny this possibility is to make an implicit assumption <strong>of</strong><br />

the validity <strong>of</strong> interpersonal comparisons <strong>of</strong> utility. In order to<br />

justify government action on utility grounds in this case, one has<br />

to assume either that all one-hundred people are identical, as far<br />

as utility is concerned, or, at the very least, that the benefits<br />

derived by the ninety-nine outweigh the psychic income losses <strong>of</strong><br />

the one malcontent. In fact, the assumption <strong>of</strong> interpersonal utility<br />

comparison is not merely implicit in the thinking <strong>of</strong> mainstream<br />

economists. Samuelson, for example, speaks <strong>of</strong> a “social<br />

welfare function that renders interpersonal judgements,” 40 <strong>and</strong><br />

then proceeds to draw an indifference-curve map encompassing<br />

the utilities <strong>of</strong> two or more different people. 41<br />

This procedure is scientifically invalid, however, as there are<br />

no units with which to measure or compare happiness or utility.<br />

We may, in ordinary discourse, say that one child likes pickles<br />

more than another <strong>and</strong> that therefore, should any temporary<br />

household shortage arise, the “pickle lover” should get first<br />

crack. But in so speaking we do not have in mind any units <strong>of</strong><br />

happiness. We do not imagine that one child loves pickles to a<br />

degree <strong>of</strong>, let us say, 48.2 happiness units, the other child only<br />

40Samuelson, “Diagrammatic Exposition <strong>of</strong> a <strong>The</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> Public Expenditure,”<br />

p. 351.<br />

41Ibid., p. 352.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!