Possibly not, as it’s not inline with this. But I’m not not sure it negates the point that whether or not an individual values a particular thing does not determine if it’s a public good.
I repeat: public safety is THE reason why we organize in countries, so police, army, justice system is in COMPLETELY different category - it is something essential, the rest is disputable. That's why you cannot compare them with, e.g. schools, there are decent countries without public education, yet, there is no serious country without police/army/courts.
This still does not negate the fact that citizens also organize other public goods. Just because an individual deems them non-essential does not mean they aren’t public goods. As public goods, the collective citizenry has deemed them worthy of public funding. Libraries are not safety essential, yet they are still public goods. Whether or not they are ubiquitous or “essential to safety” has no bearing on whether they are public goods anymore than it matters if a singular individual disagrees with that designation.
I thought I was talking to an intelligent person - do you understand that "necessary" is totally different category than "nice to have"? What's the point of having libraries if they will be looted or bombarded on the very next day? How can you still don't understand that having or not having the police forces is not comparable to having or not having libraries?
Again, you seem to miss the point. The hierarchy of importance does not matter in determining if it's a public good. Nobody is making the point that all public goods are of equal importance. Your personal stance also does not determine whether society deems it a public good. You seem weirdly hung up on a point that is altogether centered on what seems to be your own personal definition. Something can be a low priority or non-essential or not economically viable and still be a public good. You seem determined to have an entirely different conversation but it seems to blind you to the actual points being made. Again, to answer your question, we got from stadiums to police because they are both arguably public goods worthy of tax dollars. That's not to say they are equivalent in utility or that every thinks they are worth the tax dollars spent. If you want to shoehorn a libertarian argument into the discussion it can be done in a more germane approach.
Yeah, I know, you downvoted me, I don't mind, enjoy yourself.
But, again, to the point (because you still missing mine): I don't argue libraries shouldn't be subsidized from taxes, I even clearly stated it's the mater of personal opinion (if you read carefully you'd know), I argue that you just cannot mention libraries and the police in one breath like you did, simply because they are not of the same kind - the library (again - kinda tired of repeating myself) CAN be subject of discussion, but police, army, justice system - CANNOT.
It's not about me enjoying myself; the guidelines are there to help ensure a civil discourse. For what it's worth, I was not downvoting, somebody else already did so before I saw your comment.
And for the last time, I was not equivocating. I've said that multiple times; there is no disagreement despite your insistence on pretending there is. The through-line is not that they are equal, it's that they are both public goods of varying degrees. You are reading too much into the comments and inserting arguments that are not there.
