Freedom, Society, and State - Ludwig von Mises Institute

tim i n g, and ext en t 0 f s pray i ng, and rna y y i e 1d subs tan ­
tially greater benefits."(83)
Example could be piled upon example, but what is
vi tall y impor tan t about the Goldin art icle is that he
cogently demonstrates that in every area commonly
assumed to be collective, and thus entailing equal and/
or unrestricted access for all, the method of distribut
ion is, inac t uali t y, a rna t t e r 0 f c hoi c e, and t hat i t
is on I y a I a ck of imag i na t i on among academi cs tha t has
prevented them from recognizing this.
But even if there are no goods that are inherently
collective, this still does not mean that such goods as
gas 0 r tel e p h 0 n e s e r v icesoug h t to· be prov idedon the
f r e e mar k e t. For· a s Go I din f r eel y a c knowledg es, 0 ne
may have a choice of distribution systems but the economically
rational choice for some goods might still be
to treat them as if they were collective. Thus, while
i t mig h t bee0 n c e i va bleor pos s j b 1e torely 0 nthe ma r ­
ket for the provision of a certain set of services,
t his w0 u Ide n t a i I wa s t e f u 1 d upi i cat ion and s hodd Y s e r ­
vice and could therefore not be practical or desirable.
But, argue both minarchists and anarchists, this
once again underrates the flexibility and adaptability
ofthemark e t s y s tern and the i nge nu i t Y 0 f the rna r ke t
particip1lnts. A free market telephone system, for
example, is popularly depicted as lining every street
with a plethora of telephone lines and with customers
unable to call anyone subscribing to a competing agency.
But, as John Hospers points out,
no private telephone company that wanted to
del i ver the best service at the lowest price
compatible with making a profit would dream
o f h a v i n g s u chan u t t e r I y c r a z y s ystem • • •
The fa c tis, 0 f co u r s e, t hat jus t as in the
case of water supply, private companies would
dea I wi t h one another for thei r mutual benefit
and prof it. Company A would make it easy
for its subscribers to call the subscribers
of Company B, and Company B would do the same
for the subscribers to Comapny A -- not particularly
because each wanted to confer profit
s on the other one, but because that would
be the on 1 y way to get them. If there was a
telephone company that refused to cooperate
with the other ones, it would get only a
sma 11 number of subscr ibers, for one would be
311