Proprietary Cities vs Pragmatarian Cities?

[Xerographica]

Here's what the economist Don Boudreaux wrote on his blog today... "My student Mark Lutter makes a powerful case for for-profit cities."

I read the story and replied to it. As you might have guessed... I argued that pragmatarian cities would be better than proprietary cities. Lutter quickly replied back that proprietary cities are more "politically feasible" than pragmatarian cities.

Eh? Could that be true? For some reason it really doesn't strike me as obviously true. So thought I'd survey you folks in order to clarify the popularity of both types of cities.

Just in case some of you aren't familiar with either type of city...

Proprietary city: the city is owned and run by a corporation. As usual... the goal of the corporation would be to maximize its profits. It would accomplish this by effectively competing consumers (residents/businesses) away from its competitors (other cities). Who doesn't want to live/work in a better city? Disney World is frequently cited as an example of how proprietary cities might function.

Pragmatarian city: just like regular cities but taxpayers would be able to choose where their taxes go. The goal of each department would be to maximize its revenue. Departments could accomplish this by effectively competing tax dollars away from other departments.

A main tenet of both types of cities is that incentives matter. The fundamental difference between both types of cities is the granularity of the incentives/spending/feedback. With the proprietary city you're effectively buying a large bundle of public goods from a private entity. If you're unhappy with the bundle then you can simply move to a different city. But with a pragmatarian city... you're not buying a large bundle of public goods. You're only buying the public goods that you value most.

Personally, I think there are a lot of bundles that make sense. Like a cell phone being bundled with a charger. Or a computer being bundled with a browser and an operating system. But I really don't think it makes any sense for parks and police to be bundled together. In fact, I find the idea so absurd that it just made me chuckle. Even if you do eat salads and steaks, which is a far more logical bundle, it's not necessarily the case that you always eat them in the same exact proportion. And it's definitely not the case that you always eat them in the same exact proportion as everybody else.

Anyways, I'm guessing that some of you are entirely tired of talking about pragmatarianism! Which is perfectly fine and understandable. If this applies to you then feel free to simply discuss the feasibility/desirability of proprietary cities. Can you see yourself living in a for-profit city? Would you jump at the chance to do so?

To be clear... the general concept isn't very new. The same general argument could be made for monarchism...

Even a bad sovereign feels more compassion for his people than can ever be expected from the farmers of his revenue. He knows that the permanent grandeur of his family depends upon the prosperity of his people, and he will never knowingly ruin that prosperity for the sake of any momentary interest of his own. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

For all intents and purposes... Max Barry is the king of this domain (NationStates). And here we all are! We are voluntarily his subjects! Some more loyal than others!

[Cuprum]

Running a city like a corporation, nah. I prefer Nordic welfare state.

[Aggicificicerous]

They're both awful ideas, but Lutter is correct. Proprietary cities are least feasible; pragmatarian cities (Again? Really?) are not.

[Xerographica]

They're both awful ideas, but Lutter is correct. Proprietary cities are least feasible; pragmatarian cities (Again? Really?) are not.

The only actual evidence I have regarding their respective political feasibility is the survey that I attached to this thread. So far, according to this survey, I wouldn't necessarily argue that proprietary cities are more politically feasible than pragmatarian cities. Of course this might change if/when more people participate in this survey.

In any case, I'm not exactly sure what evidence you are using to arrive at the conclusion that proprietary cities are more politically feasible than pragmatarian cities.

[Naretion]

A lot of people out there would make a "Pragmatarian City" a living hellhole. And there'd be no way to stop it except going on a murder spree. Proprietary Cities sound much better for everyone. Proprietary is clearly the lesser evil. It involves a lot less inevitable oppression. Both seem destined to result in some sort of revolt too, but still.

They are both horrible ideas, yes. But I'd take a company running my city any day compared to my peers.

[Xerographica]

They are both horrible ideas, yes. But I'd take a company running my city any day compared to my peers.

So you are more inclined to trust Walmart, for example, to run a city... but less inclined to trust the owners of Walmart to choose where their taxes go.

[The Nameless Wayfarer]

They are both horrible ideas, yes. But I'd take a company running my city any day compared to my peers.

So you are more inclined to trust Walmart, for example, to run a city... but less inclined to trust the owners of Walmart to choose where their taxes go.

Evidently, yes.

Walmart - a company that isn't very kind to its employees and bribes foreign governments - is obviously your trustworthy choice. While I may view the rest of humanity in a negative light from time, I believe people should definitely have faith once in awhile in terms of others competence. From my layman's understanding, the only time a total, "Mob mentality," kicks in is typically in vast venues, like an entire nation.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Dude I'll live in Disney World

[The Liberated Territories]

I like my cities like I like my government: small and out of the way

[Aggicificicerous]

They're both awful ideas, but Lutter is correct. Proprietary cities are least feasible; pragmatarian cities (Again? Really?) are not.

The only actual evidence I have regarding their respective political feasibility is the survey that I attached to this thread. So far, according to this survey, I wouldn't necessarily argue that proprietary cities are more politically feasible than pragmatarian cities. Of course this might change if/when more people participate in this survey.

I wouldn't count seven people voting on a poll that only offers a dichotomy of options as evidence.

In any case, I'm not exactly sure what evidence you are using to arrive at the conclusion that proprietary cities are more politically feasible than pragmatarian cities.

I'm not sure what evidence you're using to arrive at the conclusion that pragmatarian cities are at all feasible.

Determining a government's budget is not easy. It requires a team of professionals who evaluate how much money is coming in, how much each department needs, additional expenditures and sources of revenue, and probably several other things I've missed. Just one of those questions, such as how much a department needs, requires extensive calculations. In other words, this is not something citizens can do, not matter how intelligent they may be, because they have their own lives and jobs to attend to. They may know what areas are important to them, but they do not know the ideal distribution of revenue.

Furthermore, you assert that each department's goal is:

...to maximize its revenue. Departments could accomplish this by effectively competing tax dollars away from other departments.

This is absurd. The goal of each department is to provide its assigned services. All together, the city must provide stable and effective governance to its populace. This isn't a matter of separate businesses, but a single entity that works toward a common goal. Once you force departments to campaign for their dollars, you reduce the efficiency with which they can do their jobs, and you increase their overall expenses because now they have to run stupid things like marketing campaigns to entice voters. And what if one department is far better than another? What if education takes all the money from a less glamorous, less well-known department like sanitation? That is not in the government's best interests, and it is not in the people's best interests. All it does is turn the government into an inefficient mess in the name of some vague concept of pragmatism and freedom of choice. Utterly absurd.

[Risottia]

Both ideas are actually the same. The only difference is that in the first case you'd have the officers of a corporation to revolt against, and in the other case the heads of the departments to revolt against.

[Naretion]

They are both horrible ideas, yes. But I'd take a company running my city any day compared to my peers.

So you are more inclined to trust Walmart, for example, to run a city... but less inclined to trust the owners of Walmart to choose where their taxes go.

People able to choose where their taxes go leads to majority rule. While in theory it is fair, in practice it never is. True majority rule can be seen in practice many places in the world and on the internet and it always ends with the total oppression of the minority. Control over money is a powerful control indeed. If 51% decide they don't want to fund schools then many children will go uneducated. If 51% decide one gender or age group should receive better/more healthcare then the 49% are screwed. A third party that answers to profit answers not to the majority, but to the status quo. They give any sizable group of people what they want, why wouldn't they? This keeps oppression limited to extreme minorities only, which sounds a lot fairer to me, personally.

[Xerographica]

I'm not sure what evidence you're using to arrive at the conclusion that pragmatarian cities are at all feasible.

There's a difference between "feasible" and "politically feasible".

As I said in my OP, Lutter quickly replied back to me that proprietary cities are more "politically feasible" than pragmatarian cities. The keyword being "politically". Given that we live in a democracy... I take this to mean "popular".

He didn't argue that proprietary cities are more feasible than pragmatarian cities. You argued that proprietary cities are more feasible than pragmatarian cities.

Of course you're certainly welcome to argue, as you've already done, that pragmatarian cities are not at all feasible! I just want to be clear that we're talking about two different, but admittedly related, things.

[Aggicificicerous]

I'm not sure what evidence you're using to arrive at the conclusion that pragmatarian cities are at all feasible.

There's a difference between "feasible" and "politically feasible".

As I said in my OP, Lutter quickly replied back to me that proprietary cities are more "politically feasible" than pragmatarian cities. The keyword being "politically". Given that we live in a democracy... I take this to mean "popular".

He didn't argue that proprietary cities are more feasible than pragmatarian cities. You argued that proprietary cities are more feasible than pragmatarian cities.

Of course you're certainly welcome to argue, as you've already done, that pragmatarian cities are not at all feasible! I just want to be clear that we're talking about two different, but admittedly related, things.

If "politically feasible" is just popularity, then I'd like to think neither option is politically feasible, but I don't really know. I am talking specifically about feasibility, as in 'to what extent is this possible'.

[Xerographica]

If "politically feasible" is just popularity, then I'd like to think neither option is politically feasible, but I don't really know. I am talking specifically about feasibility, as in 'to what extent is this possible'.

The point of this thread was to use a survey to try and clarify their respective popularity. But according to this previous NationStates thread... 35% of the members of this forum want at least some choice over how their taxes are spent. That was out of 98 participants. Please feel free to make it 99 participants! Although I'm sure that I will not like your answer!

[Aggicificicerous]

If "politically feasible" is just popularity, then I'd like to think neither option is politically feasible, but I don't really know. I am talking specifically about feasibility, as in 'to what extent is this possible'.

The point of this thread was to use a survey to try and clarify their respective popularity. But according to this previous NationStates thread... 35% of the members of this forum want at least some choice over how their taxes are spent. That was out of 98 participants. Please feel free to make it 99 participants! Although I'm sure that I will not like your answer!

And 65% said they didn't. I don't think anyone is going to be rushing to publish that data.

[Xerographica]

The point of this thread was to use a survey to try and clarify their respective popularity. But according to this previous NationStates thread... 35% of the members of this forum want at least some choice over how their taxes are spent. That was out of 98 participants. Please feel free to make it 99 participants! Although I'm sure that I will not like your answer!

And 65% said they didn't. I don't think anyone is going to be rushing to publish that data.

Hah. I published the heck out of that data. I'm a cup half full kinda guy. Well... at least sometimes.

[Fartsniffage]

If "politically feasible" is just popularity, then I'd like to think neither option is politically feasible, but I don't really know. I am talking specifically about feasibility, as in 'to what extent is this possible'.

The point of this thread was to use a survey to try and clarify their respective popularity. But according to this previous NationStates thread... 35% of the members of this forum want at least some choice over how their taxes are spent. That was out of 98 participants. Please feel free to make it 99 participants! Although I'm sure that I will not like your answer!

If you want a decent view of their respective popularity then a "neither" option would seem appropriate.

[Xerographica]

The point of this thread was to use a survey to try and clarify their respective popularity. But according to this previous NationStates thread... 35% of the members of this forum want at least some choice over how their taxes are spent. That was out of 98 participants. Please feel free to make it 99 participants! Although I'm sure that I will not like your answer!

If you want a decent view of their respective popularity then a "neither" option would seem appropriate.

Lutter didn't necessarily argue that proprietary cities are politically feasible. He argued that proprietary cities are more politically feasible than pragmatarian cities.

If proprietary cities were already politically feasible... then there would be no need for Lutter to make the case for them. It would be like preaching to the choir.

[Shofercia]

Here's what the economist Don Boudreaux wrote on his blog today... "My student Mark Lutter makes a powerful case for for-profit cities."

I read the story and replied to it. As you might have guessed... I argued that pragmatarian cities would be better than proprietary cities. Lutter quickly replied back that proprietary cities are more "politically feasible" than pragmatarian cities.

Eh? Could that be true? For some reason it really doesn't strike me as obviously true. So thought I'd survey you folks in order to clarify the popularity of both types of cities.

Just in case some of you aren't familiar with either type of city...

Proprietary city: the city is owned and run by a corporation. As usual... the goal of the corporation would be to maximize its profits. It would accomplish this by effectively competing consumers (residents/businesses) away from its competitors (other cities). Who doesn't want to live/work in a better city? Disney World is frequently cited as an example of how proprietary cities might function.

Pragmatarian city: just like regular cities but taxpayers would be able to choose where their taxes go. The goal of each department would be to maximize its revenue. Departments could accomplish this by effectively competing tax dollars away from other departments.

A main tenet of both types of cities is that incentives matter. The fundamental difference between both types of cities is the granularity of the incentives/spending/feedback. With the proprietary city you're effectively buying a large bundle of public goods from a private entity. If you're unhappy with the bundle then you can simply move to a different city. But with a pragmatarian city... you're not buying a large bundle of public goods. You're only buying the public goods that you value most.

Personally, I think there are a lot of bundles that make sense. Like a cell phone being bundled with a charger. Or a computer being bundled with a browser and an operating system. But I really don't think it makes any sense for parks and police to be bundled together. In fact, I find the idea so absurd that it just made me chuckle. Even if you do eat salads and steaks, which is a far more logical bundle, it's not necessarily the case that you always eat them in the same exact proportion. And it's definitely not the case that you always eat them in the same exact proportion as everybody else.

Anyways, I'm guessing that some of you are entirely tired of talking about pragmatarianism! Which is perfectly fine and understandable. If this applies to you then feel free to simply discuss the feasibility/desirability of proprietary cities. Can you see yourself living in a for-profit city? Would you jump at the chance to do so?

To be clear... the general concept isn't very new. The same general argument could be made for monarchism...

Even a bad sovereign feels more compassion for his people than can ever be expected from the farmers of his revenue. He knows that the permanent grandeur of his family depends upon the prosperity of his people, and he will never knowingly ruin that prosperity for the sake of any momentary interest of his own. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

For all intents and purposes... Max Barry is the king of this domain (NationStates). And here we all are! We are voluntarily his subjects! Some more loyal than others!

I would argue that proprietary cities are better than pragmatarian ones. The latter only work if they're limited to certain demographics, and even then you'd run into problems of freeloaders. Let's say that you have a pragmatarian city with 10,000 people. Most are elderly, and only about 100 have kids. Do you think that said city will have state of the art schools? Nope, but it will have state of the art parks. As for the 100, get the fuck out of our city/ark. Or let's take the opposite. City's full of young parents. You'll have great schools, but very little relaxing parks. You'll have lots of parks to play in, but not many to relax in. As thus, you'll end up with cities segregated by age group. And if you're in the wrong age group, tough shit.

But I'm just getting started. Let's say that you have "Free SomethingStankraine" people living in your city. They're going to want all of their tax dollars to go to a charity working to free something irrelevant to your city, while freeloading from the services provided by the rest of the city's residents. Will this cause tensions between the residents? Oh, absolutely. Or let's say that Mayor X's running a mostly white conservative city. "No funding for espanol" would make a great mayorial slogan. The environmentalists take over, they don't want cars, down goes infrastructure funding, have fun with the potholes. The polluters take over, convince people to vote their way, down goes the anti-pollution agency's staffing needs. Whoopsie. Smog it up, bitch. And so on...

On the other hand we have Proprietary Cities. The problem here isn't in the city itself, but rather in the competition. If Agency Y is running all of the proprietary cities in a certain region, then people have to either move out of said region, or suck it up. With the potential monopolization of Proprietary Cities, the risk is enormous. As long as they're competitive, they'll rock, no doubt. But once monopolization hits, the residents shall be fucked. Royally.

The best solution is to have an educated staff that is truly devoted to the city's prosperity, run the city. In essence, Meritocratic Cities would rock.

[Diopolis]

Both of these are utter foolishness.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

More Austrian garbage coming out of George Mason University...

[Alvecia]

If you want a decent view of their respective popularity then a "neither" option would seem appropriate.

Lutter didn't necessarily argue that proprietary cities are politically feasible. He argued that proprietary cities are more politically feasible than pragmatarian cities.

That may be the case, but the results of such a binary survey can easily be misinterpreted, accidentally or deliberately. Which is why it is prudent to have a "none of the above" option on a survey.

Also, not having a neither will remove the demographic that thinks them equally politically feasible.

[Alvecia]

Also, you really are like the personification of appeal to authority aren't you.

I don't think I've ever seen you provide "evidence" that wasn't just a quote from an economist.

[Shofercia]

Also, you really are like the personification of appeal to authority aren't you.

I don't think I've ever seen you provide "evidence" that wasn't just a quote from an economist.

Best known example of a proprietary city: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Buena_Vista,_Florida