Voluntarily funded government

[Gary Brenner]

Did you mean "... through irrational means..."? Otherwise this doesn't make sense.

No, I meant what I said: “An irrational person can acquire wealth through rational means.” Example: the actor-comedian John Belushi earned a handsome income by rationally selling his talent to TV and movie producers, although the conduct of his private life was highly irrational.

If person A earns twice as much as person B he deserves twice as much protection as person B.

If person A owns two houses and person B one house the police should put assign three officers, one on each of the three houses. Then your donation to the police would be distributed according to each person's productivity. Wouldn't you agree on that?

Not quite. First of all, A’s earnings (or more properly the amount of contract insurance he buys per year) may not vary directly with the amount it costs the government to protect A from violent criminals. He may live in a community where, for various socio-economic reasons, the crime rate is very low and a high concentration of police is not required. See, for example, the tables at http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/crimerep.html In 1996, Baltimore experienced 1,200 crimes per 10,000 residents, even though there were 43 police officers for every 10,000 residents. By contrast San Jose had only 413 crimes per 10,000 people and needed only 16 officers per 10,000 people. Even within Baltimore, some areas are much safer than others. Fells Point and Canton, for example, have lower crime rates than East Baltimore. Therefore, if A’s protection costs the government half of what it costs to protect B, why should A pay twice as much as B in padded fees for contract insurance (an area of the market completely unrelated to violent crime prevention)?

As for law enforcement relative to home value, A’s property, although worth substantially more than B’s, may not cost the government substantially more to protect. For example, if A and B live next door to one another, the same police patrol that covers A’s house can also do B’s making the cost of protection equal. Also, A’s house may be better fortified against forced entry, thus requiring less police oversight.

The question is if this is the optimal allocation (for you) in the long run. I have serious doubts about that because such a donation doesn't simply return in form of a welfare check (in which case you were absolutely right). For example it is beneficial to you if a thief is caught, even if he didn't rob you but your neighbor (because you could be next). I have to think this through again, though.

It is probably true that increasing the number of police officers in a high crime district will yield a lower crime rate. But if the choice is for me to pay to increase the number of police patrols in my own low crime neighborhood or pay to increase patrols in a crime war zone, I’ll vote for the former.

Edited February 20, 2008 by Gary Brenner