Ouch. My rather innocent posting commenting on the notions of a social contract and a common will seems to have been read as an attack on democracy, and probably on motherhood and apple pie as well. It wasnt meant that way. It really wasnt. I think this thread is in danger of drifting away from the interests of the HES group, but let me put the record straight. Economic theory seems to have established that private provision of public goods is inefficient. I dont know the history of that result in detail, but it has been at least implicitly understood for a long time. However, there has never been a concensus among economists about what should be done, because, I was trying to suggest, there isnt an easy answer. I think Mary Schweitzer is trying to suggest that it is easy, and that one can readily tell when a government is serving the 'common will', and when it is not. The point of my mention of Arrow is that there may not be any clear cut answer. Theoretical discussions of free riding do indeed show that it may be rational for people to agree to be coerced (compelled, required, whatever word you like), but dont help in telling us what it is that they should agree to be coerced to do. Discussion leading to consensus on some policy issue is an ideal solution, but it doesnt generally work in large and diverse communities (does it? Is there consensus in the US now, for example, as to the proper role of government?). Two points relevant to the HES group: first, economists have been grappling with this issue for centuries. Many have thought that the costs of state action often outweigh the benefits. Rent seeking is surely a real phenomenon, and one that economists have been aware of, informally at least, since before Adam Smith. That doesnt say it is the only relevant phenomenon - see above. Second, political philosophers have also grappled with these sorts of questions, and have said a lot that is relevant about notions like 'social contract' and 'common will'. They, of course, havent reached any sort of consensus either. Hence, to go back to Mary Schweitzer's original posting, any claim that economics shows that state intervention is necessarily bad is a falsification of both the history and the present state of the discipline. But that is about as far as we can go. Tony Brewer, Bristol