Public goods, as commonly defined, don’t truly exist.  The notion that certain goods require forceful provision under the guise of public necessity is a repeated fallacy designed to pacify critical thought.  This relentless chant aims to embed an unquestionable truth: some things are simply too important for the market to handle alone.  A cursory analysis can unravel the logical inconsistencies underpinning this assertion.

The argument goes like this: there are certain goods and services that markets can’t provide efficiently or sufficiently, necessitating coercive measures for their provision.  These “public goods” are purportedly so essential that reason itself must be set aside.  This logic demands blind acceptance.  Yet, under scrutiny, the uniqueness of these so-called public goods collapses.  With only a modicum of reflection, the absurdity becomes apparent.

In reality, any product or service could be declared a public good under the flimsiest pretext.  Take deodorant, for example.  Suppose someone claims that by wearing deodorant, you improve the experience of those around you.  Suddenly, by this reasoning, deodorant becomes a public good due to its positive externalities.  The line blurs quickly.  The argument is infinitely elastic—anything, when framed creatively, can be transformed into a public good.  Yet, the market produces deodorant without any coercion.

Proponents insist that the market is incapable of producing certain goods or, at best, can’t deliver them in adequate quantity or quality.  Yet, history proves otherwise.  Goods and services currently seen as “public” were often originally developed and provided by private actors.  From roads to education, entrepreneurial innovation has repeatedly stepped in where there was genuine demand.  If there is a genuine need, an entrepreneur will find a way to meet it.  Others, driven by competition, will soon follow.

Why does the myth persist?  The answer is simple: vested interests.  The public goods narrative would not be pushed with such fervor if no one stood to gain.  Unlike individuals who face consequences when their beliefs are incorrect, those perpetuating this myth bear no cost.  The burden falls on the unwilling participants—the taxpayers, who fund these supposedly indispensable goods.  For those benefiting from the fallacy, the incentive to maintain the narrative is strong and enduring.

The truth is that anything can be labeled a public good as long as someone, somewhere, is impacted by your actions.  Using the deodorant example again, while others may enjoy the effects of your choice to wear it, this doesn’t justify forcing the entire population to subsidize it.  The same faulty logic can be applied to any good: replace deodorant with any other product, and the argument holds.  The market has produced, and continues to produce, all manner of goods and services without compulsion.  Different people have varying needs and preferences, but that disparity does not justify the use of force to fulfill them.

Ultimately, the narrative of public goods is a convenient tool, one used to justify coercion under the banner of necessity.  It survives not through reason, but through repetition and vested interest.  Unmasking this illusion reveals a simple truth: the market, if left free, has always found ways to provide what people truly need.

Reference

Hans-Hermann Hoppe; The Economics and Ethics of Private Property