The collective action problem sounds good in theory, but the concept breaks down when you realize that the formation of a government (at least a democracy or republic) is also a collective action. The idea is that we can't form a market to efficiently create certain things like roads, but that somehow we can form a government which can efficiently create those things. Market failures, like the failure to produce a public good, are not defeated or circumvented by forming a government, because government is also a public good.
> It's rational for a private company to insert a road into a system to benefit itself at the disadvantage to others (cf. negative externalities). Indeed it's rational for several to do this making ad-hoc modifications to the network, the net result of this is significant inefficiency.
It's also rational for a government to insert a road into a system to benefit "itself" (i.e. politicians, construction companies that are "friendly" with government, etc.) at the disadvantage to others. What is your response to my environmental argument? That's an argument about specific negative externalities that are produced by government that I would not expect to be produced by private infrastructure.
> The moral question then arises: we have these single-points-of-trust, do we have any democratic control over them?
It's just as reasonable to ask that about government roads. Does government's decisions about roads reflect the desires of the population? I haven't seen any data, so I don't really know, but I would suspect the answer to be mostly no. But markets often do have the quality that their products reflect the desires of the population.
> The collective action problem sounds good in theory, but the concept breaks down when you realize that the formation of a government (at least a democracy or republic) is also a collective action.
Formation of a government may have these problems, but it's done once every now and then, and then in between we have stable periods of consensus. Yes, some will disagree with this, and some with that decision, but your solution involves spreading this same mess, akin to government formation, over every single activity where a consensus would be beneficial!
Your parent didn't claim government was the most efficient way. Your parent just claimed the public has more control over government, than a company operating as a pseudo-government serving similar functions.
Does government's decisions about roads reflect the desires of the population? I haven't seen any data, so I don't really know, but I would suspect the answer to be mostly no.
> Your parent just claimed the public has more control over government, than a company operating as a pseudo-government serving similar functions.
And I think the claim that public has more control over government needs to be backed up by some sort of data. Of course, you'd need to define the term "pseudo-government" as well.
> Well, if that isn't a convincing argument...
It's not meant to be a convincing argument. That's why I explicitly said that I don't have any data, and that I simply suspect something. Do you have any data? There are plenty of studies on whether the public approves of the general behavior of its government, and at least in the USA the numbers aren't great. My suspicion is that the numbers wouldn't be better when it comes to roads, based on the frequent mismanagement of roads and the number of complaints I here about roads. Again, not data, just suspicion.
> And I think the claim that public has more control over government needs to be backed up by some sort of data. Of course, you'd need to define the term "pseudo-government" as well.
For pseudo-gov read "multinational". As far as data goes, I cant think of a principle more well-evidenced. A single person who is not a consumer of a corporation has no influence whatsoever over the decision making of that corporation.
I can go to my local representative and act in my local community (petition, etc.) in which my local representative has a stake and he can do things for me.
The tremendous amount of public shaming the government goes through (compared to private corps) should be evidence enough that there's a considerable amount of public accountability.
You're still not showing any data, and I would question your conclusions. Just because it seems like you have a say in politics doesn't mean you actually do. If, for example, public policy has no or little positive correlation with public desires, or the public is extremely disappointed with government (both of which are the case in many polls and studies), I would question the presumption that people really have a voice in politics.
> It's rational for a private company to insert a road into a system to benefit itself at the disadvantage to others (cf. negative externalities). Indeed it's rational for several to do this making ad-hoc modifications to the network, the net result of this is significant inefficiency.
It's also rational for a government to insert a road into a system to benefit "itself" (i.e. politicians, construction companies that are "friendly" with government, etc.) at the disadvantage to others. What is your response to my environmental argument? That's an argument about specific negative externalities that are produced by government that I would not expect to be produced by private infrastructure.
> The moral question then arises: we have these single-points-of-trust, do we have any democratic control over them?
It's just as reasonable to ask that about government roads. Does government's decisions about roads reflect the desires of the population? I haven't seen any data, so I don't really know, but I would suspect the answer to be mostly no. But markets often do have the quality that their products reflect the desires of the population.