I’m Free
I'm free-I'm free
And freedom tastes of reality
I'm free-I'm free
And I'm waiting for you to follow me
There is a
big difference between free and unpriced.
The issue of “free” public transit has been in the news. The
problem is TANSTAFL, There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. What is "free" to
the individual rider, is not "free" to the transit operator, in this case the government
that subsidies transit.
The issue is that economists define goods as exclusive and
nonexclusive. (If someone uses a good, no one else can use the good, which makes it exclusive
to the consumer of the good); AND rival and nonrival. (the good has a price, in which case it is
rival.)
- Private property is exclusive and rival. (For
example, your meals).
- Public goods are non-exclusive and non-rival (For
example, sunshine)
But
- Intellectual Property is non-exclusive but rival
(For example, movies)
- Common Goods are exclusive but non-rival. (For example,
fishing stocks).
People get confused by the vastness of a Common Good, but if it
is limited then someone probably should regulate it (such as fishing quotas), or otherwise allocate it.
People are also confused by Intellectual Property. Music might
be non-exclusive in that my listening to a song doesn’t prevent you from listening
to that same song, but unless it is priced or regulated (e.g. copyrights, patents,
etc.) then there is no incentive for someone to produce that music, so there
better be a price.
Just because transit is without fares does not make it free. The
riders might not pay a fare, but someone (society) is paying for those transit
subsidies. Prices or regulation are used to ALLOCATE the good, not merely to
pay for that good.
The absence of price means that something is priceless,
not that it is free. Transit might appear free to the riders, but
they should treat it as if it were priceless, not free. Do not squander trips on
transit. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Transit might be without fares,
but that does not mean that it is free.