tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post4657301334680778677..comments2024-03-28T09:22:36.967+13:00Comments on Offsetting Behaviour: Competing for AidEric Cramptonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15831696523324469713noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-54504773011684831602014-01-28T14:33:13.253+13:002014-01-28T14:33:13.253+13:00You don't need to run the experiment to find o...You don't need to run the experiment to find out the answer: there's already lots of privatised footpaths, in malls, supermarkets and so on. They almost universally ban begging, and often even busking, and allow only pre-arranged charity events (e.g. sausage-sizzles) from the right sort of non-threatening establishment charities. Not because of concern for beggars' welfare, but because it's off-putting to paying customers.<br /><br /><br />Auckland's begging ban needs to be viewed in that context: it's an attempt by central city businesses to remove something that reduces their ability to compete with largely-beggar-free suburban malls.<br /><br /><br />In any case, private footpath owners can only enforce restrictions because there's a public footpath that violators can be ejected to. A government policy, or a "private" footpath monopoly, on the other hand, needs to account for everyone, since they can't be involuntarily removed, short of prison.<br /><br /><br />(Would a privatised footpath system be meaningfully private, anyway? If you have the power to trespass people from any public place, you effectively have an arbitrary power to put people under house arrest, which to me has crossed the line into simply being a government).Stephen Davisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-56268295987175200272013-10-02T23:04:57.859+13:002013-10-02T23:04:57.859+13:00I don't think we have the self-mutilation prob...I don't think we have the self-mutilation problem here, so the worst forms of rent-seeking here don't need be mitigated. Can imagine reasonable arguments either way. Best solution: privatise all the sidewalks, then see whether private sidewalk owners would allow begging. Why do we think the State can mimic the market here? [channeling 4 am grad school debates, not making a serious proposal]<br /><br /><br />See also Conan Doyle's "The Man with the Twisted Lip".<br /><br /><br />And Tullock's alternative discussions of the superefficiency of charity, which can apply in the cases where the rent-seeking problems can be avoided.Eric Cramptonhttp://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-30618964040346395122013-10-02T19:55:57.653+13:002013-10-02T19:55:57.653+13:00I was thinking about begging this morning (more in...I was thinking about begging this morning (more in the context of the Wellington council recently having tried (and by all accounts, failed) to encourage potential donors to give to an organized charity rather than to beggars directly, in the hopes of reducing the potential pool of funds for beggars). <br /><br /><br /><br />What if there's a information/coordination/preference problem? If some people don't know/don't care/don't believe that giving can be incentivationally harmful (or can't stop themselves giving), they'll continue to do so, and the beggars and those that find begging distasteful/whatever, will continue to be harmed. If education campaigns and diversionary tactics (like Wellington's) don't work, is there then some justification for anti-begging laws such as the one's being mulled over in Auckland?James Meanwellnoreply@blogger.com