I’ve recently heard some conversation trying to sully or tarnish the idea of openness by associating it with socialism. (Of course, if there’s anything you don’t like in the US today the standard response is to label it “socialist,” despite the fact that many labelers can neither define nor spell the term properly.) However, from my perspective some of the most important forms of openness are simply about obeying one of the standard laws of capitalism: if I pay for a good or service, I am entitled to the good or service. Could the market (or society) survive if we didn’t obey this rule?
I wonder at what point the following progression of scenarios crosses from an area where my expectation is reasonable into an area where my expectation is unreasonable:
1. I walk into a restaurant and pay $5.99 for the day’s special. I expect to be served the food and to be able to eat the food.
2. Two friends and I pay $65 each for tickets to a professional basketball game. I expect to be allowed to sit in the seat listed on my ticket and to get to watch the entire game.
3. My family pays $250,000 for a home. I expect that my family and I will be able to live in the home.
4. My community implements a one-time tax to pay for a new playground, and I pay the tax. I expect that my family will be able to use the new playground.
5. My state government implements an ongoing tax part of which is used to build and maintain roads, and I pay the tax. I expect to be able to use the roads.
6. My national government implements an ongoing tax part of which is used to fund the conduct of research, and I pay the tax. I expect to be able to see and use the results of the research.
7. My national government implements an ongoing tax part of which is used to create educational materials, and I pay the tax. I expect to be able to use the educational materials.
In the current system there is a point around (6) where a change occurs and I am expected to pay twice for the same good or service. For example, say my taxes are used by NSF to fund research, and the results of this research are published in an expensive academic journal. After having paid once for the research to be conducted, now I’m supposed to pay again to subscribe to the journal to find out what the results were? It’s like paying for a pizza only to be told that the original fee was to have the pizza made and baked, put that I’ll have to pay again (and substantially more this time!) if I want to be able to eat the pizza.
Why is the pay-twice model ok for 6 and 7, but not acceptable for 1 or 2? It isn’t. If I pay for a good or service, I’m entitled to it. If taxpayers pay to support research or the creation of educational materials, we are entitled to use those results and resources.