There is a tendency in modern times, one upon which I have commented before, to think of collective action only in terms of government. When considering any activity requiring the cooperation of many individuals, excepting explicitly commercial ventures, we inevitably turn to the government to perform this act. In fact, even commercial ventures are not immune to this confusion. For instance, when a sports team is relocating, does the team arrange for the construction of a stadium and needed infrastructure? Of course not! States compete with one another to perform what should be a private function on the spurious grounds that it brings in revenue (which is not among the proper functions of government, anyway). Similarly, when education is discussed, the immediate response to any talk of ending state run education brings the response "but how would the poor be schooled?" without even considering the possibility of private action divorced from the power of the state.

I have already written about education, so I won't go into great detail, but allow me a moment to look at this question. Why should providing education for the less affluent require the powers of the state? Properly conceived, the only difference between state backed collective action and private collective action is that the state has the legal power to initiate the use of force¹. How does the provision of education require that? Education involves the gather of funds, the hiring of teachers, the building of schools, the planning of classes and the actual teaching of those classes, none of which require the use of force. So why is the state able to provide education while a group of individuals could not?

I can see two arguments for the need to involve the state, but both go against the idea of a free society. First, one could argue the state is required as private groups could not raise enough funds, and so the state's taxing power (which is essentially taking money by force) is needed. But, if enough individuals support education that it is constantly supported by elected officials, should there not be enough to fund it? Especially if they were no longer taxed to fund it? And, if there are not enough ardent supporters, then why should a free society force them to do so? If we truly govern by consent of the governed, why should we force funding for something that could not be funded voluntarily?

The second argument is even less sensible. This is the idea that we need the state's power to make children attend. However, that is a strange concept as well. The idea is, as far as I understand it, to provide education for the poor, not to force it upon them. If parents do not feel the need to make their children attend, why should the state's power be used to force them? Because many disagree with their decisions? If that is the standard, then what is the argument against forced conversions to the state religion? Forced enrollment in the majority party? Or any other sort of enforced belief? If the state can be used to overrule decisions the majority finds unacceptable³, then what freedom is left to us? The freedom to be a member of the majority without interference?

However, I am not writing to make the argument for educational freedom³, nor even to argue against forcing one's own values upon others. As I said, I am trying to understand why, at one time, it was well understood that individuals could act together, in non-commercial ventures, and perform necessary tasks, all without the government being involved in the slightest⁴. To that end, let us approach this problem in a slightly unorthodox manner, let us look at it backwards, rather than examining the problem, let us reverse that. After all, if we begin by asking ourselves how privately initiated collective action, privately organized, funded and controlled, could serve to replace what have either traditionally been government functions, or which some number of individuals would like to see the government provide, then we can take that information and quite easily answer the question of which services lend themselves to such solutions.

On the surface it is tempting to divide the question in two, splitting apart those services the government already provides and those it does not, but which some propose it should. There is even the possibility of farther subdividing the first into areas newly government controlled and those long provided by the state. And that may be useful in some contexts, we may even make such a subdivision in passing in one or two places, but, in general, I think it best if we treat all collective action as being of a kind, if we don't concern ourselves with whether or not government currently provides it, as we can then ignore any real world failings of "the system" and instead show the strength of our argument by comparing private action to a best case hypothetical governmental service. In this way we will not be troubled by the shortcomings of the real world, lack of funding, union difficulties, historical accidents, and so on, and, on the other side, we can also ignore the pointless, but often offered argument that the state has always provided this or that, and instead concentrate on the merits, and not on debating whether or not antiquity is a valid defense.

Since we will not be examining the transition from public to private in any specific instances, or asking about the hardships inherent in any change of this nature, let us look at these topics now, in a more abstract sense. We can then simply refer back to this section when discussing specific questions, and avoid getting bogged down in the minutiae of specific cases, as we will have addressed all the significant issues here⁵.

Before we deal with the more easily quantified changes, and the ones most likely to be exploited for political gain by those opposed to this change, let us look at one consequence often overlooked by libertarians in their proposals, the loss of familiarity. Whether right or wrong, we have a tendency to adapt to things as they are, to adjust our actions, our schedules, even our thoughts, to the present reality. And so, when things change, it causes us to become slightly disoriented. Often it is too little to notice⁶, but when changes are great it can have a much more significant impact⁷. The time during which individuals adjust to these changes will likely be rather chaotic, at least within the scope of those who are effected by the program in question. It can be a beneficial chaos, such as private schools thriving in the wake of eliminating public schools, or it could be negative, such as the uncertainty and unfamiliarity of the situation causing investors to hesitate and private school growth lagging behind demand for schooling. Nor will any such confusion be limited to the specific industry or area of endeavor. The economy, and life in general, is not so compartmentalized, and so any such change will have effects on a host of other areas, rippling outward to touch many parts of society. 

The problem with mentioning such uncertainty, and probably the reason it is so rarely raised, is that we have no easy way to predict what will happen. Human reaction is hard to predict in well known circumstances, reactions to uncertainty are unknowable. And so, though we can be sure there will be unforeseen consequences, there is no way to know what they will be, where they will strike, or how long they will last. On the other hand, we can say with some assurance that, over time, the responses will more and more closely resemble those economics would predict. In addition, the farther removed one is from the changes, the more one will respond in a traditional manner⁸. And so, though there will be a time when there may be unexpected outcomes, given time, it will sort itself out. Even when we are in the midst of chaos, it will likely be local, more or less, to the changes themselves. And so, while we must be aware of this, and consider it, we should not let fear of this uncertainty prevent us from acting. It must simply be kept in mind as an unpredictable possibility.

There is one other aspect to this which must be kept in mind, as it is a bit more easily quantified. That is that programs which are primarily charitable in nature are especially prone to being incorporated into the lives of recipients, and their disappearance, or just simple changes, more likely to cause problems and confusion. Most notably, when a welfare program of some sort disappears, even if replaced by a private equivalent, it takes time for the recipients to find, or even seek out, that replacement, and so there is likely a long lag between the end of a welfare program and the old recipients finding new sources of income⁹. Again, this problem will clearly be f a temporary nature, and its scope and duration are unpredictable, but it must be mentioned.

The remaining costs of transition are more easily resolved, and more simply described. First, there is no guarantee that the level of services provided will be identical before and after the transition from public to private. As we shall discuss later, the level of services when provided by the state rarely depends entirely on the need for such services, or the public support for them, but instead is based on political influence, public attention, bureaucratic skill and a host of other factors which have little to do with the actual problem ostensibly being solved. It is far from likely private funding will produce the same amounts, and so there will be a clear difference. Whether that is good or bad is a matter of perspective, and will need to be decided on a case by case basis. However, it is obvious that the private solution will most likely be much closer to individual desires than the politically based and government imposed one.

So, having noted these points, let us look at the main issue, how private action could replace our current fetish for governmental solutions, and what the consequences would be.

There are two conceivable situations, though there is also some considerable grey area between the two, those two being circumstances where the enterprise in question could be profitable, and those where it would not.

The transition from public to private in the  profit making enterprises are such an obvious solution I feel foolish even answering the question "how?" We simply get out of the way and let individuals pursue their goals. For example, to privatize the mail, we simply need to eliminate any legal impediments to private mail and then phase out the government postal service, or else transition it to private ownership. In either case, the lure of money will bring investment which will spawn businesses and, before long, the service once purely governmental will become purely private.

Privatizing non-profit enterprises is equally simple to explain, though it may raise more objections. In this case, we either shut down or phase out government services, at the same time reducing the taxes used to fund them, and allow private individuals to take up the slack, hopefully using the money returned for that purpose, at least in part. Of course, in some cases the funding provided by the government will not be matched by private donations. Individuals may think a cause deserves more, or less, or maybe not enough individuals can be found to continue it at all. Perhaps food stamps will continue unchanged, but the NEA will disappear. Or most likely, the government programs themselves will vanish, and the replacements will be something different, as private enterprise finds new ways to do what the government did. My point is, if individuals have the money the government once took from them, and they really support the cause, they will band together to achieve that end. And if they do not truly support that cause, then why should the state's power be used to fund that cause?

And interesting situation arises in areas which are presently charities under the government, but which could be made profitable under private ownership. For example, public education is currently a losing proposition, at least in terms of profits. And in my essay on education, I imagined continuing public education as a charity. But who is not to say some enterprising person might not set up higher caliber private schools which would provide better educations for children, to be repaid out of future earnings, akin to the student loan program? It may not be feasible, but it might. And if I can come up with one idea in a few minutes, I am sure others can come up with many, many more. Much of what is now funded by appropriated dollars, bringing in no revenue can be changed under private enterprise to become profit making ventures.

What amuses me when I propose this is that people bemoan turning "pure" enterprises such as national parks into "impure" profit making ventures. They seem to ignore the fact that the government now charges to enter parks, as well as leasing out logging rights, grazing rights and engaging in many other efforts to subsidize operations. Why is that any more pure than the same done by individuals intent on making a profit? Or, if they really want to ensure a park is kept free and untainted by commerce, what is preventing them from gathering together investors, or taking up a collection, to buy out a park, establish an annuity, and leave it as a perpetual legacy to the nation? The government need not be involved to make free parks available to the public.

Actually, having written this, it seems clear that almost any area of government action could conceivably be turned into either a profit making enterprise, or a charitable venture. Roadways, fire departments, vaccination efforts¹⁰, all could be made privately funded charities (or even possibly profitable in the case of toll roads, or subscription fire services, offering better response times than local volunteers for paying subscribers¹¹). And as we could eliminate almost all government if we were willing to privatize, it seems the better question is not what we can privatize, but instead what clearly could not be made private.

The first answer is pretty simple, though it does destroy one of the most cherished science fiction concepts. We could not privatize the police department. Though many science fiction films have proposed ways to do this, in reality it would not be feasible, for reasons we will discuss shortly. Second, we cannot privatize the army, for many of the same reasons. Third, we cannot privatize the criminal courts. Finally, there are many issues with privatizing the civil courts, though conceivably it could be done for all areas outside of tort law, which would require either special legislation or small governmental courts to handle those residual cases. Beyond those areas, clearly the legislature could not be privatized, as it is a wholly governmental function, as is the chief executive. But that is pretty much the limit of those services which must be performed by the state. Beyond those functions, almost anything can be done through private cooperation¹².

Why can't we privatize police and armies? Or the criminal courts? The answer is not as obvious as it might seem, but it is there. First, police and armies cannot be made profitable without violating the basic principles of government. A profit making army would have to rely upon something like a system of plunder, which would likely lead to endless aggressive wars, not a situation one would desire. So long as the army exists to protect against aggression, it must be publicly funded. The police are a bit different, but again the problem is that their service is essentially the use of  force. Let us imagine a private police force employed by a city. In exchange for protection, the police require a weekly payment. So far, so good. But what about those who don't pay? If there were not way to tell them from others, then likely no one would pay the police, replying upon criminal;'s lack of certainty to protect them. On the other hand, if the police identified the protected and unprotected in some way, the unprotected would be subject to constant attacks by would be looters. And that being the case, the police fee would become a form of extortion, allowing the police to set their fee as high as they wished, since failure to pay would be effectively an invitation to every miscreant. That being the case, the only way to ensure uniform protection at a reasonable rate is to publicly fund the police¹³.

Charitably funded police and armies would be a bit better, but have their own problems. The greatest of these being the possibility of many individuals founding "competing" police forces. This may sound beneficial, but int he end it would likely become chaotic. What would happen in the case of a crime if the various police disagreed over which party was to blame? What would happen if one police force attempted to arrest someone, while another force, considering him innocent tried to arrest the police "kidnapping" the individual?  There is also the possibility that, with a privately created police force, the founders could exercise undue influence over the police, refusing funding should the police not act as they wish. This could obviously happen with public police as well, but in that case the public can vote out the officials, while a privately created police force does not offer that option. Only by making a singular police force, clearly answerable to the government of a given area, can such problems be avoided and can law enforcement function properly.

The comments above should also make clear why criminal courts and legislatures must be publicly funded and controlled as well.  Certain functions are simply impossible to perform privately.

The one area where there is any grey area is in the area of civil courts. Civil courts are mostly, or were until the liability revolution pushed so many cases into the real of torts, filled with cases created by prior consent. That being the case, it would be quite easy to imagine private courts where individuals would agree beforehand to abide by the decision of a private judge. They would either have to pledge bonds beforehand to provide payment in the event of an adverse judgment, or else, if there were only a few such courts, the negative implications of being unable to appear before such courts due to nonpayment, would have to be such an impediment to civil life, that one would never think of going against the courts. However it would be handled, it is very easy to imagine private systems replacing the civil courts of today, except in one area.

Torts it the one exception, as it involves encounters between strangers, where no prior agreement could exist, and where no one would have pledged bonds, and where being excluded from future court hearings could not be made a detrimental state of affairs. That being the case, individuals who have need of a court to resolve an injury to or by a stranger would need some arena in which to settle it, and the government seems the obvious provider. So, even if we privatized contract law, and most of the rest of civil law¹⁴,  it seems torts would remain in the hands of the state¹⁵.

Oddly, despite the great length and numerous digressions of this post, I feel I have only scratched the surface of this topic. Having just realized how strange it is that we automatically equate collective action with government, I find that my changed perspective opens up a multitude of new solutions to old problems. But explaining all of those ideas would take much more time than I have available.

For now, let us close by saying that there is no reason why we must involve the government simply because an action requires multiple people. An action can be carried out private without the state, as easily ( or more so) than with the state. We only fail to see this because of our blindness to the uses of private cooperation.

===============================================================

1. In a strict sense, the state has no powers an individual does not, as the state gets its rights through delegation by individuals ("A Right Is A Right", "If We Were Consistent", "My Political Philosophy", "Volunteer Fireman, Barn Raisings and Government"), but I am speaking here of contemporary government realities, not of the ideal which should exist. Our modern state has arrogated to itself the use of force and only reluctantly allowed some right of self-defense to individuals, so it is correct to say the present state has the power to initiate the use of force, while individuals do not.

2. And please, no strawman arguments about some "right to murder" or "feeling like stealing". I am clearly discussing decisions which do not harm the rights of others. And, before someone argues about parents and the rights of children, rights are life, liberty and property, so making decisions someone does not like is not a violation of rights. Second, for better or worse, parents make decisions for children. Why? Because someone must, and as I discussed in "Some Thoughts on "Summerhill"", the other alternative is a one sized fits all decision by the state, which, despite the beliefs of some, is certain to be worse overall.

3. Even before I decided to write this essay, I had planned to write on the idea of compulsory education. However, as it is a bit more complicated than other topics, mostly because it involves children, and parents making decisions for children, both of which tend to make readers lose sight of the basic principles of governance, it has been postponed a few times to make way for essays I could wrap up more swiftly. But I am going to write it soon, so if this is a topic of interest, keep checking this blog.

4. I do not intend to disparage moderns who almost immediately jump from the thought of collective action to the thought of government action. I have been guilty of this as much as anyone. Just read my post "My Vision of Government Part II", where I allow this modern tendency to create a rather confused, and confusing, exception in an otherwise very good essay. No, this is such a common error that
few have completely avoided it in their writing or thoughts. But, though it is understandable, that does not make it any less damaging, and so we need to understand those prone to this error, but at the same time correct them when this error arises so we can eventually bring about an end to the error itself.

5. I was tempted to say that such issues would not be an argument against the transition if private action proves preferable, but that is not strictly true. In my mind, I was thinking that any transition costs would be transitory, while benefits would be permanent, and thus it would be impossible to find an argument against change based on such costs. However, I had made such an argument myself in "The Runaway Stagecoach". Of course, in that essay I was comparing costs for the FairTax against alternatives which were also improvements, and so the situation was a little different, but not that different. Basically, economics teaches us there is a finite present value to a perpetual annuity. We don't need to go into specifics here, as we are not dealing with strictly financial terms, but the principle is the same. An infinite series of benefits still has a finite value due to the diminishing value of a fixed benefit as it is pushed into the more distant future. And so it is possible to have a situation where the present cost of change is greater than an infinite series of gains. So, though I doubt it will apply here, we do have to consider these costs when asking about changing from an existing program to private choice. I still do not favor creating two classes of such changes, but it is something to keep in mind.

6. A mundane example comes to mind. I lived in Annapolis during my teen years, and thus I came to know its streets very well. It was where I learned to drive, went on my first dates, where most of my friends lived, and so on. At 17 I moved away, first to Glen Burnie, then at 18 to Baltimore. I visited, but rarely. Then at 26, I moved to Frederick, MD and saw Annapolis very infrequently. Then well over a decade later, I moved back and now live across the river from Annapolis, and spend most of my time in the city. But, in the intervening years, a new highway was built into town, developers turned a shopping mall into a combination "downtown shopping district" and condominium/apartment complex, various parts of the city have seen new development of less drastic sorts, and, in general, much of what I knew as a teen has disappeared. When I first moved, it threw me off terribly, but I adapted fairly quickly. But still, after three years, I find myself, form time to time, planning trips using roads that no longer go where I think they do. It is a trivial difficulty, but from time to time I have caused myself inconvenience simply because I could not adjust completely to the changed reality.

7. I am not going to discuss it at length here, but as stability and predictability have been favorite topics ("The Virtue of Humility", "In Praise of Slow Changes", "Predictability", "Conservatism, Incremental Change and Federalism", "The Problem With Evolving Standards, "Inflation and Uncertainty", "The Failure of Evil"), I thought I should mention that individuals can come to rely upon bad systems as much as good, and so even though these changes amount to removing a bad system, they will still have negative repercussions for some, as individuals have come to rely upon these programs. (Just imagine what would happen were we to simply do away with social security.) In addition, the change would cause some to fear more such changes and could cause some of the problems I discussed arising from uncertainty about the future in "Inflation and Uncertainty" and elsewhere. I am not saying these argument are reason to avoid doing away with bad ideas, any more than the failure of subsidized sugar farms is an argument for eliminating import quotas, but as I argued when discussing y doubts about the "revenue neutral" nature of the FairTax for similar reasons ("Unintended Consequences"), we need to consider it in making our decisions, even if it cannot be the sole argument for not making what we see as an improvement.

8. For example, to stick with sugar quotas, removing such quotas will likely cause serious confusion and shock among sugar growers, who likely will fail without quotas. It will also cause chaos, though perhaps some more beneficial than negative, among industrial users of sugar. Moving farther away, retailers dealing with sweets may feel somewhat uncertain, more so the more of their business relies on sugar. Consumers will probably feel a very small impact, almost none at all. And manufacturers of wooden dining room furniture, drill bits or sport shooting pistols will probably be completely untouched. I do not mean to suggest it is a strictly one-to-one relation, your uncertainty varies with the percentage of your income reliant upon sugar, but it is true the more the price of sugar effects your business, the more you will feel the impact, and the more likely you will feel cast adrift by the sudden changes.
 
9. Having worked in social services a long while ago, there is a welfare information pipeline, where long time recipients inform one another of benefits they can seek. However, that is something of a closed group, and does not include all welfare recipients. Many others, especially among the disabled, even more so among the newly disabled, have a tendency to avoid contact with long time recipients and so cannot receive such information. Thus, it seems quite likely this lag will hit hardest those who are least likely to have been "lifers" in the welfare system, those opponents of welfare consider most "worthy". (This sort of irony is endemic to government action, especially in welfare. See "When Help Hurts", "When Help Hurts II", "Subsidizing Irresponsibility and Poor Planning", "Perverse Incentives", "The Endless Cycle of Intervention",  "Consequences", "Adaptability and Government" and "Too Much and Too Little".)

10. Some would argue that immunization requires governmental power, as it only works if everyone is immunized. While that may be the case, it does not remove the right of individuals to refuse treatment. And since forcing people to undergo treatment is not a proper governmental function, we must rely on either persuasion or social pressure, which can be sued as effectively by private charity as by governmental action. (In addition, I doubt the absolute rule that immunization only works if "everyone" is immunized. If that is true than no immunization has ever worked, as there have always been some people missed. I think the truth is it is most effective when there is general participation, but there is still benefit even if the immunization is not comprehensive. It is simply less benefit than would come from a broader application.)

11. Some may find this offensive, and I am not sure it would work, but it struck me as I wrote this sentence, and I thought to include it as another example of a possible way to make profitable a non-profit venture. I know it may offend some that those who pay might get better service, especially in a "life or death" service, but that is life. ("Life Is Not Fair - And Trying To Make It So Makes Things Worse") The rich can also hire a private duty nurse or even doctor to attend them, and so don't have to wait for an ambulance or sit in the emergency department. That is just reality. And so, if an area with poor volunteer service offers a profit making opportunity for such "concierge fire protection", why should we deny them the possibility? Or the owners the chance to profit? An alternative would be for an area without private fire departments to create such a service, with the payers subsidizing the non-payers. Some equipment and staff would be held off line for the subscribers, while the rest would handle all calls. In that way the poor would benefit from the payments of others, while those paying would get enough benefit to make paying worthwhile. Of course all of this is the product of about 2 minutes' thought, so there are probably huge logistical or financial problems. Just pointing out that we can make commercial things which we normally would not consider.

12. Technically, police and army functions can be made private, as an individual has a private right to self defense. What I had in mind when discussing privatizing police services was the enforcement of misdemeanor charges for acts performed in the past. Private individuals can clearly protect themselves or others, as well as property, from criminal acts they witness, and can take steps to apprehend fugitive felons. But we still need professional police for investigation, to enforce a myriad of misdemeanor laws, and to assist in enforcing laws whee private individuals are unable or unwilling to do so.

13.The concept of competing police forces is even more ludicrous as it could lead to what would be little more than gan wars as police hired by one individual square off against the police hired by another when disputes over culpability arise.

14. A few other areas seem to be likely candidates to remain in the hands of government. Most probate could be handled through private courts, but for those who die intestate, we would need government run courts. Similarly, some aspects of family law, such as the handling of orphans, petitions for emancipation and so on would all need to be handled by the state. (Marriage, on the other hand, being based on a preexisting contract, would always be amenable to private settlement.)

15. If our hypothetical private courts were large enough, perhaps even forming some sort of "clearing house" to inform one another of those who refused to pay settlements, it would be possible for getting on the wrong side of the courts to be a fate serious enough to force obedience. If that happened, the state could easily delegate all civil court functions to the private firm, and eliminate the costs of keeping civil courts.