You mean it affects government owned property. Under anarcho-capitalism there wouldn't be any government owned property. No more tragedy of the commons. Problem solved.
No, I don't mean government owned property, I meant what I said: shared resources.
An example would be early Americans trapping beaver to near extinction, or the possibility of fishing fish populations to extinction without capture controls, or running a river dry from overuse, etc. Shared resources exist whether there is a government or not.
And this is one of the reasons why I bring up the problem of public good production when talking to anarcho-capitalists. 1.) it is a major problem with some private markets 2.) It lets me know if the person I'm talking to has a background in economics, or approaches anarcho-capitalism from a philosophical point of view. You are obviously the latter. Which is fine; but you have to understand as well that constructing an economic model without experience in economics tends to lead to poor results when you go from paper concepts to reality.
There absolutely are public goods; you're merely misunderstanding the concept. You are seeing the word "public" and jumping to some sort of definition of government or public property, and that doesn't have anything to do with the concept.
Once again a public good in economic terms is any good that is both non-rival (my consumption of the good doesn't significantly impact your ability to consume it) and non-excludable (it is difficult or impossible to prevent one from being able to consume said good).
Two small scale examples: fireworks and lighthouses. You set off a fireworks display I don't have to pay to watch it, I can see it for free from afar and there isn't much that you can do about it, and my enjoyment of them doesn't really prevent my neighbor from being able to enjoy them.
Now to more important public goods: National defense, and clean air.
Simply living in the US means that I enjoy the protection of the US military and the security it brings. It doesn't matter if I pay them or not, I benefit from it regardless and there really isn't any way that one can practically exclude me from enjoying that benefit. Nor does my consumption of that benefit diminish your ability to consume that benefit aka: a public good.
Same goes for air.
The problem of course comes in with something else that I mentioned that you claimed was "made up" the free rider problem. Since I don't have to pay for national defense then what's stopping me from simply not paying towards the common defense of my country if I were given a choice (IE not taxed for it)? since I wouldn't be paying for it the military would weaken and be underfunded and underproduced. We have seen this in some countries and the military's general solution is to pray on its own population in terms of pillaging, rape, and murder. Hardly something that is desirable.
The rest of the things in your list are bogey men invented by propagandists for government intervention in the economy.
Not by a long shot, and that is one of the problem with anarcho-capitalism, you guys ignore this stuff.
Yes it does, by a very short shot. All of those arguments for government intervention were shot down long ago, like the bogeyman called "perfect competition." Perfect competition is actually non-competition. It means there is no differentiation between the products of various producers. Differentiating their products is one of the ways producers compete. So the doctrine of "perfect competition" says that any actual competition is a threat to competition. It's actually an idiotic idea, but every year millions of freshmen are taught this idiocy in college "economics" courses.
Nice strawman, but perhaps since they are so easy to disprove we could talk about "make believe" negative externalities and how your perfectly free market would deal with them. IE mass pollution say of clean air or water systems that can't easily be traced back to a single source for courts to prosecute.
