Reconfiguring essential and discretionary public goods

Abstract When is state coercion for the provision of public goods justified? And how should social surplus be distributed? Philosophers approach these questions by distinguishing between essential and discretionary goods. This article explains intractability this distinction, presents two upshots. First, if governments provide configurations that simultaneously serve purposes, scope justifiable complaints honest holdouts narrower than commonly assumed. Second, however, claims to distributive fairness in also turn out more complex assess.