What do you think?
Rate this book
The Limits Of Government: An Essay On The Public Goods Argument
The most widely accepted justification for political authority is that coercive institutions are necessary to provide for public goods. Making use of the tools of rational choice theory, economics, and the law of contracts, the author offers a critique of this argument. Along the way, he makes significant contributions to our understanding of the logic of contractarian arguments, the prisoner's dilemma, and the institution of property. An important lesson is that a community is and must be primarily a voluntary association, and in one final chapter the book explores the implications of this lesson for the foundations of morality.
- GenresPhilosophy
197 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1991
30 people want to read
About the author
David Schmidtz
31 books13 followersDavid Schmidtz is a Canadian-American philosopher. He is Presidential Chair of Moral Science at West Virginia University's Chambers College of Business and Economics. He is also editor-in-chief of the journal Social Philosophy & Policy. Previously, he was Kendrick Professor of Philosophy and Eller Chair of Service-Dominant Logic at the University of Arizona. While at Arizona, he founded and served as inaugural head of the Department of Political Economy and Moral Science.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
February 17, 2016
David Schmidtz's book is a short but powerful work towards a consequentialist defense of 1) strong property rights, 2) a government limited in its functions, and 3) a limited range of public goods.
It consists of a number of parts, ranging from an "emergent justification of enforced property rights" to a game-theoretical model of strategies available in repeated Prisoner's Dilemma situations, to a very short (and largely unnecessary) appendix on the philosophy of John Rawls.
The title gives some clue, but there's a lot of stuff, here. The end goal of the author is to define the limits of government - to what extent is coercion justified in advancing the "cooperative venture" that is society? More specifically, are public goods so important that were we to leave them at the mercy of voluntary cooperation, their absence - assuming that they would be catastrophically underfunded - would be detrimental to the very cooperative venture that society is?
The book goes through various analytical permutations, and is very careful in its approach. I find the chapters on property rights the most valuable, since they offer a novel take on the Lockean approach to original appropriation. I find Prof. Schmidtz's approach very convincing, since he gives good reasons to suspect that Lockean appropriation can be justified on a non-natural rights basis. (I.e. that we are ALL better off, in the long run, for allowing private property to emerge in this way.)
The other chapters each have their own focus. The experimental data on Prisoner's Dilemma situations under various rule constraints, while valuable, can only take us so far. The theoretical moral framework of reciprocal cooperation, which relates to this experimental data, is nonetheless a very valuable (if hardly that original), since it allows us to conceive of market anarchy as a highly ordered cooperative venture where great public benefits can be expected to emerge without coercion (i.e. without an more coercion than is called for for the upkeep of enforced property rights, as such).
The last part, where the range of public goods provisions is discussed, is perhaps the most disappointing, since it doesn't go very far in applying the theory to practice. We are not given a clear sense of what, exactly, the framework of reciprocal cooperation, means. What PRECISE public goods (beyond the minimal state) are so vital, that their underproduction would be the sort of existential "threat to the society" that alone, he says, justifies using coercion for their production?
He writes: "The public goods argument by itself can justify more than a minimal state, perhaps, but not a great deal more. The justification of big government requires a different kind of argument." This is not very illuminating. It becomes slightly more illuminating, if one embeds it into the preceding analysis, of course. But I was left craving for some further elucidation of the nature of the resulting "more than [...] minimal state". Oh well, philosophy is about the journey, isn't it?
Another (not-so-small) gripe I have is with the style. The main reason for not giving this book five stars is the rather dry and technical language which, while understandable for a philosophy book of this kind, seemed to me to occasionally needlessly distract from the message. Sometimes it seems that simple ideas are expressed in a complicated manner out of professional necessity. I believe such style, ranging between lucid and obscure, sets up unnecessary barriers between the author and the reader. One really needs to be well-versed in analytical philosophy in order to be able to follow the discussion. But if one DOES does, the pay-off is considerable. And, yes, it's quite short! There is a lot of good stuff packed in here. It's like space age canned food: full of tight-squeezed nutrients.
Overall, I rate the book quite highly as a contribution to moral, political and economic philosophy. It is a valuable contribution to the classical liberal framework of property rights and government. I wish libertarians would emulate his rule-consequentialist, institutional, game-theoretical analysis, and stop wishing for absolute foundations that cannot, and will not, be satisfactorily found. We can be happy - quite happy indeed - that we nonetheless have good reasons for preferring liberty.
It consists of a number of parts, ranging from an "emergent justification of enforced property rights" to a game-theoretical model of strategies available in repeated Prisoner's Dilemma situations, to a very short (and largely unnecessary) appendix on the philosophy of John Rawls.
The title gives some clue, but there's a lot of stuff, here. The end goal of the author is to define the limits of government - to what extent is coercion justified in advancing the "cooperative venture" that is society? More specifically, are public goods so important that were we to leave them at the mercy of voluntary cooperation, their absence - assuming that they would be catastrophically underfunded - would be detrimental to the very cooperative venture that society is?
The book goes through various analytical permutations, and is very careful in its approach. I find the chapters on property rights the most valuable, since they offer a novel take on the Lockean approach to original appropriation. I find Prof. Schmidtz's approach very convincing, since he gives good reasons to suspect that Lockean appropriation can be justified on a non-natural rights basis. (I.e. that we are ALL better off, in the long run, for allowing private property to emerge in this way.)
The other chapters each have their own focus. The experimental data on Prisoner's Dilemma situations under various rule constraints, while valuable, can only take us so far. The theoretical moral framework of reciprocal cooperation, which relates to this experimental data, is nonetheless a very valuable (if hardly that original), since it allows us to conceive of market anarchy as a highly ordered cooperative venture where great public benefits can be expected to emerge without coercion (i.e. without an more coercion than is called for for the upkeep of enforced property rights, as such).
The last part, where the range of public goods provisions is discussed, is perhaps the most disappointing, since it doesn't go very far in applying the theory to practice. We are not given a clear sense of what, exactly, the framework of reciprocal cooperation, means. What PRECISE public goods (beyond the minimal state) are so vital, that their underproduction would be the sort of existential "threat to the society" that alone, he says, justifies using coercion for their production?
He writes: "The public goods argument by itself can justify more than a minimal state, perhaps, but not a great deal more. The justification of big government requires a different kind of argument." This is not very illuminating. It becomes slightly more illuminating, if one embeds it into the preceding analysis, of course. But I was left craving for some further elucidation of the nature of the resulting "more than [...] minimal state". Oh well, philosophy is about the journey, isn't it?
Another (not-so-small) gripe I have is with the style. The main reason for not giving this book five stars is the rather dry and technical language which, while understandable for a philosophy book of this kind, seemed to me to occasionally needlessly distract from the message. Sometimes it seems that simple ideas are expressed in a complicated manner out of professional necessity. I believe such style, ranging between lucid and obscure, sets up unnecessary barriers between the author and the reader. One really needs to be well-versed in analytical philosophy in order to be able to follow the discussion. But if one DOES does, the pay-off is considerable. And, yes, it's quite short! There is a lot of good stuff packed in here. It's like space age canned food: full of tight-squeezed nutrients.
Overall, I rate the book quite highly as a contribution to moral, political and economic philosophy. It is a valuable contribution to the classical liberal framework of property rights and government. I wish libertarians would emulate his rule-consequentialist, institutional, game-theoretical analysis, and stop wishing for absolute foundations that cannot, and will not, be satisfactorily found. We can be happy - quite happy indeed - that we nonetheless have good reasons for preferring liberty.
May 16, 2023
In the realm of political philosophy, there are few works that capture the imagination and provoke thought as effectively as David Schmidtz's "The Limits of Government: An Essay on the Public Goods Argument". This book, a veritable feast of insight and intellectual rigor, invites the reader on a riveting exploration of the tensions and dynamics between public goods and the scope of government.
Schmidtz is a noted philosopher and political economist, renowned for his ability to blend theoretical acumen with practical insight. In "The Limits of Government", he does not disappoint. Drawing from his vast intellectual arsenal, Schmidtz constructs a compelling narrative that illuminates the fundamental tension between public goods and the size and role of government.
The premise of the book is deceptively simple: public goods are those goods that, once provided, are available for everyone's benefit, whether or not they have contributed to their provision. Schmidtz takes this concept and explores its implications for the size and role of government, arguing that the provision of public goods, while necessary, does not justify unlimited government intervention.
What makes "The Limits of Government" truly remarkable is Schmidtz's masterful command of the subject matter. He navigates the complex landscape of public goods and government intervention with an elegance and clarity that render even the most intricate ideas accessible to the reader. Whether dissecting the nuances of free-riding, analyzing the implications of non-excludability, or probing the depths of collective action problems, Schmidtz's intellectual prowess is on full display.
Moreover, Schmidtz's critique of overreaching government intervention is not just a theoretical exercise. Throughout the book, he infuses his analysis with a practical sensibility, drawing upon real-world examples and case studies. This focus on pragmatic considerations adds a layer of richness and relevance to the book, making it not just a philosophical treatise, but also a guide for policy-makers and concerned citizens.
In the end, "The Limits of Government" is not just about public goods or government intervention. It is about the delicate balance between individual freedom and societal welfare, between private initiative and collective action. It is a call for thoughtful, measured government intervention that respects individual rights and promotes social cooperation.
Schmidtz's "The Limits of Government: An Essay on the Public Goods Argument" is a triumph of political philosophy. It is a book that challenges, enlightens, and inspires, a book that combines intellectual depth with practical insight. It is a book that invites us to question our assumptions, broaden our perspectives, and engage in thoughtful dialogue about the role of government in our lives.
Reading Schmidtz is like embarking on a thrilling intellectual journey. His ideas are potent, his arguments compelling, his vision audacious. "The Limits of Government" is a testament to his intellectual prowess and his commitment to advancing the dialogue on public goods and government intervention.
In conclusion, "The Limits of Government: An Essay on the Public Goods Argument" is a must-read for anyone seeking to understand the complex dynamics between public goods and the scope of government. It is a book that transcends the boundaries of academic discourse, reaching out to anyone interested in the fundamental questions of political philosophy and economics. It is, in short, a masterpiece, as profound as it is accessible, as thought-provoking as it is enlightening.
Schmidtz is a noted philosopher and political economist, renowned for his ability to blend theoretical acumen with practical insight. In "The Limits of Government", he does not disappoint. Drawing from his vast intellectual arsenal, Schmidtz constructs a compelling narrative that illuminates the fundamental tension between public goods and the size and role of government.
The premise of the book is deceptively simple: public goods are those goods that, once provided, are available for everyone's benefit, whether or not they have contributed to their provision. Schmidtz takes this concept and explores its implications for the size and role of government, arguing that the provision of public goods, while necessary, does not justify unlimited government intervention.
What makes "The Limits of Government" truly remarkable is Schmidtz's masterful command of the subject matter. He navigates the complex landscape of public goods and government intervention with an elegance and clarity that render even the most intricate ideas accessible to the reader. Whether dissecting the nuances of free-riding, analyzing the implications of non-excludability, or probing the depths of collective action problems, Schmidtz's intellectual prowess is on full display.
Moreover, Schmidtz's critique of overreaching government intervention is not just a theoretical exercise. Throughout the book, he infuses his analysis with a practical sensibility, drawing upon real-world examples and case studies. This focus on pragmatic considerations adds a layer of richness and relevance to the book, making it not just a philosophical treatise, but also a guide for policy-makers and concerned citizens.
In the end, "The Limits of Government" is not just about public goods or government intervention. It is about the delicate balance between individual freedom and societal welfare, between private initiative and collective action. It is a call for thoughtful, measured government intervention that respects individual rights and promotes social cooperation.
Schmidtz's "The Limits of Government: An Essay on the Public Goods Argument" is a triumph of political philosophy. It is a book that challenges, enlightens, and inspires, a book that combines intellectual depth with practical insight. It is a book that invites us to question our assumptions, broaden our perspectives, and engage in thoughtful dialogue about the role of government in our lives.
Reading Schmidtz is like embarking on a thrilling intellectual journey. His ideas are potent, his arguments compelling, his vision audacious. "The Limits of Government" is a testament to his intellectual prowess and his commitment to advancing the dialogue on public goods and government intervention.
In conclusion, "The Limits of Government: An Essay on the Public Goods Argument" is a must-read for anyone seeking to understand the complex dynamics between public goods and the scope of government. It is a book that transcends the boundaries of academic discourse, reaching out to anyone interested in the fundamental questions of political philosophy and economics. It is, in short, a masterpiece, as profound as it is accessible, as thought-provoking as it is enlightening.
Read
September 23, 2010The Limits of Government: An Essay on the Public Goods Argument by David Schmidtz (1990)
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews