ABSTRACT
In this chapter I argue for the ethical viability of replacing monopolistic, coercive provision of ethically conceived public goods with their competitive, contractual, entrepreneurial counterpart. It might be suggested that one of the most important public goods, construed not in economic, but in ethical terms, is the availability of an emergency subsistence fund available to the least well-off. In this connection, I argue that, instead of treating the implementation of such subsistence funds as an attempt to impose external ethical standards on existing business practices and market relations, one should treat it as an opportunity to infuse ethical reflection with procedural and organizational standards characteristic of the entrepreneurial mind-set. The importance of such an infusion is highlighted by examining the weaknesses of various welfarist proposals of authors such as Rawls, Cohen, and Dworkin – weaknesses that appear to stem particularly from their distinctly non-entrepreneurial treatment of the relevant motivational and risk management issues. It is then concluded that, due to its distinctly voluntary, contractual, competitive, and entrepreneurial orientation, the system of legal and protective polycentrism would be more capable of meeting the welfare goals of such proposals.
