Freedom, Society, and State - Ludwig von Mises Institute

desirable. Order is a necessary element in any social
system; it is not the only element.
b. The "common good" and "modern utilitarian"
arguments.
Not jus tan at t rae t i ve soc i e t y but soc i e t y itself
is probably impossible in the absence of the provision
of such goods and services as pollut'ion control, road
construction and maintenance, garbage collection,
education, national defense and the like. Both the
"common good" and "utilitarian" arguments boil down to
the proposition that government is essential for the
(effective) provision of these goods and services. The
"common good" proponent justifies government action in
these areas in terms of morality, argues that citizens
have an obligation to follow these state policies, and
sees the provision of these goods and services as
e i the r all 0 r par t 0 f the "comm 0 n good • " The" uti I i ­
tar ian" on the other hand justifies such state action
in terms of its necessity or practicality, argues that
the restrictions on individual behavior are to the long
run benefit of all citizens, and that it is therefore
rat ional for the state to provide these services, which
he terms "collective goods."
There are, as we noted in Chapter VII, two methods
to coordinate actions and policies in society: conscious
coordination, which usually entails the state,
and spontaneous coordination, which generally implies
the market. The "common good" advocate tends either to
be ignorant of, or to discount, the function of the
market as a coordinating agent and therefore sees no
alternative to the state. While relying heavily on the
mar k e t for m0 s t t h i ngs, the " mo dern uti 1itarian" does
not believe that it can function effectively in the
area of "collective goods" and "externalitites" and
concludes that the state is necessary to supply these
types of goods and to coordinate pol icy in this area.
The anarchist has argued that there are no -- or few -goo
d s t hat are i n her e n t lye 0 lIe c t i v e. Ra ther, the
existence of collective goods today is a consequence of
the failure, or even refusal, of the legal system to
permit the extension of property rights into these
areas. Given the proper (common law) legal system,
such goods as air space and water could be broken down
i n toma r gin a I unit s, the reby permit ting the rna r ke t to
operate effectively in this realm as well. If correct,
the market could be the functional equivalent of the
state. This would mean that the state would not,
386