Is High School Football a Public Good?

It's that time of year again ... time to consider who should pay for private goods ... because the community doesn't pay, your neighbors do ... Jim


Article published at Mises.org

Is High School Football a Public Good?
By Jim Fedako

Most of us would never think of asking our neighbors to foot a personal bill. We accept responsibility for car and roof repairs as ours alone. In addition, we don't bang on the door across the street in order to demand a contribution towards our children's figure skating lessons, taekwondo classes, etc. That which is consumed or used by our families is to be paid from our pockets — the definition of personal responsibility.


Now let's change the situation slightly. Instead of a figure skating lesson — the realm of the private good, consider the local public high school football team — the realm of the supposed public good.[1] The technical definition of a public good — a good that is nonexcludable, nonrivalrous, subject to free riders, and hence will only be provided by government through coerced tax dollars — has been corrupted in the modern lexicon to mean anything that is perceived to benefit society in general, no matter how specious the benefit argument.

Based on the technical definition, football is not a public good as teams are excludable and rivalrous since each team is limited to 11 players on the field without penalty. But no one really applies the technical definition to derive public goods. For if they did, the concept of public goods would disappear from economic textbooks and from debates over the need for government interventions in the market.

Instead, the collectivist definition — the vacuous, yet now standard, definition — applies the general welfare argument to elevate football from a private activity to that of a public good. The argument goes something along these lines: football is beneficial because it prepares boys for adulthood, keeps them off the streets after school, and provides them with a place where they can excel.

continue reading ...

A note from Freedom Watch

An interesting note from Freedom Watch -- Jim

Spending the Money of Future Generations

From: Bernhard1848@att.net


American patriots like Robert Hayne followed Jefferson's admonition that the national debt was not something to be passed on to future generations, and most presidents of that era and until the War Between the States endeavored to pay the debts incurred under their administrations before leaving office. In encouraging an unending public debt, Webster was promoting the American System of Whig politician Henry Clay which would give the government an endless supply of money with which to buy influence and power.

Bernhard Thuersam, Executive Director
Cape Fear Historical Institute
Post Office Box 328
Wilmington, NC 28402
www.CFHI.net



Spending the Money of Future Generations:

"The gentleman from Massachusetts (Webster), in alluding to a remark of mine that before any disposition could be made of the public lands, the national debt (for which they stand pledged) must be first paid, took occasion to intimate (that Southerners desire to pay the national debt) "arises from a disposition to weaken the ties which bind the people to the Union." But, adds he gentleman, "so far as the debt may have an effect in binding the debtors to the country, and thereby serving as a link to hold the States together, he would be glad that it should exist forever." Surely then, sir, on the gentleman's own principles, he must be opposed to the payment of the debt.

Sir, let me tell that gentleman that the South repudiates the idea that a pecuniary dependence on the Federal Government is one of the legitimate means of holding the States together. A monied interest in the Government is essentially a base interest...it is opposed to all the principles of free government and at war with virtue and patriotism. In a free government, this principle of abject dependence if extended through all the ramifications of society must be fatal to liberty. Already we have made alarming strides in that direction.

The entire class of manufacturers, the holders of stocks with their hundreds of millions in capital, are held to the Government by the strong link of pecuniary interests; millions of people, entire sections of the country, interested, or believing themselves to be so, in the public lands and the public treasure, are bound to the Government by the expectation of pecuniary favors. If this system is carried on much further, no man can fail to see that every generous motive of attachment to the country will be destroyed, and in its place will spring up those low, groveling, base and selfish feelings which bind men to the footstool of despots by bonds as strong and as enduring as those which attach them to free institutions."

(The Webster-Hayne Debate on the Nature of the Union, Herman Belz, Editor, Liberty Fund, 2000, pp. 42-43. Speech of Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, January 25, 1830)

Educationists: First they demand your tax dollars, then they condemn you for earning them

Jeffrey Tucker over at Mises.org posted the following article.

Read it and weep for our future as the Rethinking Schools teachers (follow the link below) scheme ways to destroy what remains of our Liberty. These teachers -- who I believe represent the vast majority of public educators -- play out their socialist agenda in an after-school program. An experiment in Marxist social change.

Should those of us who produce value in the private sector apologise to those who live off our toil? According to the teachers at this school, we should. We are in debt to those whose serve the state. This is a theme heard over and over again from almost everyone on the Left (note statements from Clinton and Obama). According to these folks, the private sector is no place for the next generation.

Yes, these folk believe that one most be employed by the state in order to produce anything of value. Our efforts and our products are nothing more than the fruits of our servitude to the evil capital class.

Never answered are these questions: Who will produce in this utopian paradise? Who will be left to pay the taxes?

From Legotown to Communist Utopia
Jeffrey Tucker

A commentator on this blog draws our attention to this piece on the site Rethinking Schools. It is called "Why We Banned Legos." It is indeed an amazing piece of work, a perfect distillation of the romantic attachment that bourgeois educators in a prosperous society have for a communist ideal they have never experienced or seen or, apparently, read about.

In the short version, the teachers allowed the children in an after-school program to build a massive and growing Legotown. As kids will do, they students tended to homestead certain pieces and structures, and then barter them. Eventually resentments over who owns what emerge, and, after some inadvertent destruction of some buildings took place, conflicts arose.

The teachers then used the occasion to teach a lesson straight from old-time communist ideology, bringing the kids around to the view that all structures must be public structures, that nothing can be owned but by groups, and that all structures will be standard sizes.

It is an engaging if very alarming read! I would be curious to know to what extent the kids absorb the "lesson" they were given, or, if their heart of hearts, they really do miss the excitement and beauty of the real Legotown.

In any case, reading this piece, you can understand how it is that Castro's resignation has unleashed mind-boggling statements about the glories of the society he created, and its "immense achievements in terms of healthcare, poverty reduction and education."

Killing two birds with one stone

A prior post at the Blog at Mises.org:

By Jim Fedako

The two birds: My wife's desire for additional landscaping; and, your carbon guilt. It's really simple. You go to The CarbonNeutral Company website and calculate the amount of the carbon emissions resulting from your daily commute. Note the estimated values for carbon mitigation. You then go to PayPal and send me one of the amounts shown. Don't worry, I'll accept whichever amount you select. After receipt of your funds, I'll send you a certificate - suitable for framing - stating that I have declared your commute carbon neutral. My wife and I will then go to our favorite nursery and buy trees and bushes. Of course, we'll snicker behind your back. But, hey, you'll never know.

Olentangy Levy: Parents Blinked

Frightened by your own board.

It certainly appears that threats work. But, to be threatened by your own elected officials and paid bureaucrats. Well ...

A little push and the board wouldn't have cut your busing -- it had no reason to cut that or any program. In your hearts, you knew it. Yet, you cowed under pressure of your own elected officials. Democracy at work, I assume.

Really, 10 parents in the boardroom are enough for any board to question its decisions. Make that 50 parents, and busing would have stayed, along with everything else.

Keep in mind that accountability is a two-way street. The community must be willing to stare down the board and administration every now and again. Otherwise, in their own minds, the board and administration grow more and more conceited. Olentangy saw that in the 90's, and I expect that we will see it again.

So, as the board and superintendent stared, the parents blinked. The result is this: Parents gave the board and superintendent a mandate to do whatever they choose. Whether the next issue is likely high salary increases, perverse books, or something else -- parents, do not complain. Your blink allowed whatever power you once held to pass from community to board and superintendent.

Transportation for control -- a Faustian bargain of sorts.

It was as simple as that.

Olentangy Levy: Short of repetition, there's nothing more to say

There's really nothing more to say about the Olentangy levy. I am reposting my executive summary -- actually taxpayer summary. I encourage you to read all my other postings so you can understand that there is no need for the March levy.

Let's focus on just four of the things we know:

1. The $10.5 million in cuts is not required.
2. Bond investment is available and can be used.
3. The administration and board have no intent on negotiating tighter contracts.
4. Schools cannot be closed to the public, churches are safe.
5. The last year(s) of all district levies have deficit spending.

Additional explanation:

1. The cuts list is a threat; plain and simple.
2. The fact that there is bond investment income means that the district is not selling bonds only when bond money is needed. I don't think anyone wants the district to sit on a pile of bond money -- funded by tax dollars -- so that investment income can be earned. The board will consider this option after the levy fails.
3. The negative balance in FY09 is cleared by tighter negotiations. It's that simple. The district is not currently proposing this as a solution, but it will after the levy fails.
4. The district can't close schools to the public. Never could. State laws will not allow it.
5. Deficit spending in the out-years of a levy are normal, in fact all district levies are structured that way -- including the one on the ballot.

Talk about scope creep

The Children's Hunger Alliance has expanded it's horizon, they now want Ohio state government to fight both hunger and obesity. Seems like a name change is in order.

Regardless, these nannies want government run more and more aspects of our lives. It's not enough for the state to provide breakfast and lunch, they now must enforce reduced caloric intake or mandate more activity.

When is enough, enough?

I have no issue with these folks grabbing the soapbox and attempting to influence individuals, but these folks want to force us all to live as they choose. Another example where the motto "Don't Tread on Me!" has been replaced by the the authoritarian "Do as I say!"