Full Civic Literacy Exam

Please recall the actual test question and answers:

Question: A flood-control levee (or National Defense) is considered a public good because:
Your Answer: government pays for its construction, not citizens
Correct Answer: a resident can benefit from it without directly paying for it

My answer matches the most current and common understanding of the term "public good", as reflected in the definition given in the Business Dictionary. I already admitted that neither that answer nor the one the test givers claim is "correct" is a great answer.

The definition you provided, from modern economic textbooks, is good. But that's NOT what was in the test.

The "correct" answer given in the the test does not include directly or inferentially the essential non-rivalry and non-excludability aspects. So it's not a good answer. It's a bad answer. It's incorrect. Extended it would have theft being a "public good".

And yes, your last response was helpful.

I'm really not sure why you've decided to plant your flag on businessdictionary.com as the authoritative source on this subject. It isn't. I suspect you already know that its definition is far from the common one - it is, in fact, unique among the first couple pages of Google search results, which I suppose is where you started your search. Interestingly, bd.com is even contradicted by its own sister site.

But let's set all that aside for now, since you've gone back to the actual language of the test. Can you tell me where, in the question itself, it was stated that the flood-control levee is government-financed? I don't seem to see that. It's just an assumption you made. A flood-control levee would be a public good regardless of its financing, and that's the whole point.

As I think I said earlier, this is really an economics question, not a civics question. But the answer key isn't wrong.

Oh, it's bigger than "economics" such as you would seem to know that term, economics, which is a a currency of use that seems that dates back a hundred, maybe a hundred fifty years. That is, the term "public good" is bigger. It is a linchpin term, one that that the multidimensional balance between tyranny and liberty balances on.

The most modern *common* modern meaning is exactly as Business Dictionary has it. That is a near perfect operating definition as well, for exactly describes the action of the modern government in the US and in most nations today. A "public good" is that which they can raise taxes to pay for.

But you and your modern economics have a peculiar in history, yet very useful and clearly descried variant meaning of the term. "Public good" as you and modern economics use the term inside your field implies a thing that meets the requirements of non-rivalry and non-exclusivity in usage. That's fine, great even. But is it is not the general meaning of the term, nor the historic meaning, nor the newer common modern meaning.

The French businessman and polymath Bastiat, for exmaple, used the term in it's long established historic meaning:

And now I would appeal with confidence to men of all schools, who prefer truth, justice, and the public good to their own systems. Economists! Like you, I am the advocate of LIBERTY; and if I succeed in shaking some of these premises which sadden your generous hearts, perhaps you will see in this an additional incentive to love and to serve our sacred cause. (Bastiat, 1860, "To the Youth of France," Economic Harmonies, p. 14)

The historical meaning of "public good" means that which it is moral and good for a society to provide, or to allow to be provided for. A necessity of a community, of a good society. That is the meaning it has in the oldest economics and philosophy texts.

But, wait, modern economics, especially the progressive and socialist parts of it, have a secret meaning from the word "public good". It is a goal-oriented meaning. It is this: the world's best and mightiest excuse to raise taxes, to seize property and to enact regulation.

Well, it's not so secret, the modern economic texts, especially those progressive, socialist, or Marxist, quickly get to it. That the mere existence of things that a society must do, means that they have to be paid for, and who better to get that payment than a progressive, socialist or Marxist tyranny! Well, they--the textbooks and their authors--don't call the collecting authority a tyranny, but reality does!

Oh, the tragedy of the commons!

Again you insist that businessdictionary.com, whose publishers can't even agree with themselves on the definition, is the authoritative source.

As to your other points, "the public good" and "public goods" are two different things. But I have to say that if you really were thinking of "the public good," then your answer to the question is even more puzzling, because in that case, your answer would mean that government funding itself defines whether something is, as you put it, "moral and good for a society to provide." I am certain you do not believe that.

The definition of "public good" is not controversial, is not secret, and nothing in that definition demands government funding. I hope that you will take the time to read more on the subject, if it interests you, but I have officially run out of things to say here.

Best wishes to you.

Oh boy, you are a LOT more influenced by socialist theory than you would seem to be aware. “Public good” is a definition, that is always unsettled, as society advances. An advanced society needs a different set of things to operate than a less advanced, and there are cultural differences as well.

As an example, the proper use of the electromagnetic spectrum was a novel public good one hundred years ago. We are still involved in defining the public versus private boundaries of the good that may be gained out of it. Today the internet address space and network protocols are novel area s in which the “public good” is being understood, and defined.

Modern economics co-opted the historic definition, that’s sure. But not completely.

I'm taking a big chance replying here, because I'm beginning to suspect that you've just been pulling my leg for some laughs, but when you resort to saying I am socialist-influenced, it's a little tough to just leave that lying there. (And since the first reference I sent you was from the general director of a libertarian economic think tank, I'm curious whether you think he also is "influenced by socialist theory.")

"Public good," in the context of the original question, does not mean "good" as in "good or bad." It means "good" as in "goods and services." Sort of like how you can buy "goods" at an adult bookstore, but that doesn't make them "good." The use of "public good" (again, in the context of the original question) is not a moral judgment. Nor is it a term of the left. It is a widely understood economic term which does not, by itself, carry any socialist implications.

The test we took, by the way, was written by an organization that defines itself this way:

Founded in 1953, ISI works "to educate for liberty" — to identify the best and the brightest college students and to nurture in these future leaders the American ideal of ordered liberty. To accomplish this goal, ISI seeks to enhance the rising generation's knowledge of our nation's founding principles — limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, the rule of law, market economy, and moral norms.

Look who's on their Board of Trustees - Ed Feulner, Dick Allen, Al Regnery - bunch of socialists, huh? The intent of the question, it seems pretty clear, was to see how many people understood that "public good" does not mean publicly funded. You clearly did not understand that.

And now, with your shifting definition, you are reduced to arguing that that: a) a "public good" is defined by public funding; and b) a "public good" is morally right. And a + b = what? Public funding is morally preferable? You cannot possibly believe that.

Now, if you have, in fact, just been pulling my leg all this time, I tip my hat to you. You got me. Good one!

Now there’s an example by argument to authority. And applied to the term “public good” it’s wrong.

Yes there is a distinction between “goods and services” where a good is an fungible item. and “goods” as in moral goods.

The term “public good” BEGAN as a term describing the moral goods that a society must do—that’s how the original economists, or rather the natural philosophers talking about trade, finance, money and government used it. Taxes of some sort can and should be raised for some of these public goods. Like lighthouses, major roads, ports. Or for water supply, sanitation, education and religious infrastructure. Or common food stores, mutual defense, etc. etc.

Including river levees, damns, sea walls.

But in modern economics, in the middle and later eras of the debate over socialism they grabbed ahold of the same term. Here was a debate that attempted to divorce morality from governmental operation. That’s where the libertarians come in, or the amoral scientific schools of economics even when they are not socialist.

Under morally based economic philosophies private parties—individuals, families, businesses, guilds, counties—have a duty to provide some public goods. There’s a constant political discussion to be had as to what in each time and place are the public goods that should be provided.

Under amoral philosophies, formulas are developed, terms defined per formula (and also implicit bias) that allow the formulas to be applied according to clear rules of logic.

When the morality (G-d) based philosophy of economics was forgotten, the amoral economic philosophers still continued a battle between socialism and non-socialism, that non-socialism including libertarianism. In that framing the term “public good” became reused in a very different meaning in theory, but the SAME meaning in practical effect.

The practical effect is that a public good is anything that a government might justify spending money on. No morality to that, just empowerment of government officials by means of a scientific sounding excuse.

Thus your confusion.

Look, I think it must be very hard for most people to understand at the same time two wisdom systems, each with distinctly separate logic, rooting and postulates, that cover the same aspect of human experience.

Our nation was founded according to the one, the other—the one you ascribe to—is newer, and it is a like a replacement theology. The newer, being modern economics-is, perhaps not so much false, as much as artificially limited.

Both systems provide rationales for CIVICS.

It was civics that was the area of human endeavor covered by the test.

I’ve said this a number of times already, and I’ll repeat it: None of the answers the test was gave were right. But one was more right than the other three and it was the one I chose.

It was more right because it was the common misconception, or perhaps half-conception, of what a public good is. Later, as you suggested I found the BusinessDictionary.com definition, that meshed my rational for picking that answer.

The answer that the test provider chose is more wrong. It’s not even half-right.

When you say your answer was “more right because it was the common misconception” am I correct in understanding you to mean that you deliberately chose the wrong answer, believing that since most people misunderstand public goods, the wrong answer must be what they were looking for?

Were you surprised when it turned out that the test’s authors agree that your answer was wrong? That they clearly do not share this “common misconception?” I should think you would have been relieved to see this.

That’s a cute take on it. But they picked an answer that was even more wrong, and even more corrupting if accepted.

Thanks again, I’ve meandered in answering on this issue. But with your help we’ve (I mean me and anyone able to follow me) really come to see that there are two very different formulations of the concept of a “public good”. And which formulation citizens and officials apply in making law, regulation, policy, in settling legal disputes can make a big difference in long-term outcome. One definition leads to the beneficent-tyrant-state at best, the other leads to Liberty.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.