Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Private provision of public goods can be undermined by co... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Consequentialism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Private provision of public goods can be undermined by competitors who free-ride on those goods.

    Consequentialism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mancur Olson's collective action theory demonstrates that rational actors systematically defect from cooperative provision when exclusion is impossible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When defection is individually rational for all actors, the Nash equilibrium produces systematic underprovision regardless of aggregate social benefit.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Underprovision through Nash equilibrium collapse constitutes structural undermining, not merely contingent competitive pressure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Samuelson's 1954 formal proof establishes that non-excludability severs the link between consumption cost and pricing signals that sustain private provision.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without price signals, free-riders impose an externality that progressively erodes the cost-recovery capacity of any single private provider.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.When it is prohibitively expensive to charge individuals for a good, that good becomes a public good accessible to non-payers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A competitor who does not provide the public good avoids the associated costs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A competitor with lower costs can undercut the original provider's prices.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    ConsequentialismDemocracy & Governance

    Connections

    1 topic

    Social Contract1 linked

    Related

    A competitor who does not provide the public good avoids the associated costs.A competitor who undercuts prices can drive the original provider out of the mar...A competitor with lower costs can undercut the original provider's prices.Mancur Olson's collective action theory demonstrates that rational actors system...
    +5 moreShow less
    Samuelson's 1954 formal proof establishes that non-excludability severs the link...Underprovision through Nash equilibrium collapse constitutes structural undermin...When defection is individually rational for all actors, the Nash equilibrium pro...When it is prohibitively expensive to charge individuals for a good, that good b...Without price signals, free-riders impose an externality that progressively erod...

    Similar

    A competitor who does not provide the public good avoids the associate...77%Samuelson's pure theory of public expenditure demonstrated free-rider ...74%Modest restrictions on liberty necessary to provide significant public...73%A competitor who undercuts prices can drive the original provider out ...69%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: public-goods
    View source passageHide passage
    The shopping centre example illustrates a potential problem for the private provision of a public good. Suppose that it is prohibitively expensive to charge individuals for the use of parking spaces provided. Parking space is then a public good because non-shoppers can use it free of charge. Suppose further that the owner of land nearby exploits the situation by building a competing shopping centre that does not offer parking space. The new shopping centre can price its competitor out of the mar
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit