“The mistake of public goods theory is to presume that economists can detect that something that is needed but is not being provided by markets, either at all or in sufficient quantity. But this is just an observation that we don't live in a Garden of Eden. At all times, people want goods and services that do not exist or are unaffordable. But just because we want something to be made available does not mean that it should be made available.
If we have to consult with economists to discover whether there are not enough lakes and roads, shouldn't we also check with them to see if are too many tennis shoes and toothpaste brands on the market? Ultimately, public goods theory is a rationale for central planning and an attack on the market itself. The real question is whether it is economically beneficial and economically justified to override voluntary transactions and market verdicts, and forcibly transfer property from private owners to the state. I don't think it ever can be justified." Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Então como resolver o dilema? Eu diria que só por decisões colectivas unânimes em que um conjunto de pessoas acorda (por unanimidade) submeter a consulta e o método (maioria simples? maioria qualificada?) uma qualquer questão relacionada com o financiamento de determinado bem e as transferências de propriedade compulsórias que lhe estarão subjacentes em caso afirmativo, estando assim presumido que seja qual fôr o resultado da consulta esta será respeitada. Esta é de resto a única fonte de legitimidade possível de qualquer decisão democrática. Tem de existir esta presunção.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário