While the 1995 Tigers' baseball season has come and gone, the debate surrounding how to fund the proposed new Tiger stadium has not subsided. Recent proposals call for the city of Detroit and the state of Michigan to carry a portion of this financial burden. Such proposals are misguided, however, for they rely on public funds when dealing with a private enterprise.
Perhaps the best argument against the use of public funds is that such funding comes from taxation - money that the state and city require one to pay by threatening punishment. Thus, the city and state are attempting to fund the new Tiger stadium through a coercive means. The building of a new stadium is outside of government's role of protecting individual rights; such a project only compromises one's right to keep one's property for peaceful uses. Additionally, coercive funding of a stadium may result in economic inefficiencies - the government may build a stadium when the market does not demand one. Such problems concerning property rights and economic efficiency are unnecessary, for the private funding of a new stadium will solve them.
While baseball has traditionally been a part of Detroit and Michigan, the fact remains that this sport is merely a fraction of the entertainment market. There are plenty of entertainers from which to choose, so many people may hold no interest in baseball. Also, some people may live a great distance from Detroit, making it inconvenient to travel to the stadium. Given this, why should the government burden all Michigan taxpayers with the cost of a new stadium when a number of citizens - perhaps even a majority - has no plans to use it? Such a proposal is unfair, for it inflicts cost of some taxpayers without returning any benefit.
One must remember that the Tigers baseball club is a private organization that strives to increase its profits. If the government does assist in the funding of a new stadium, it will give this organization an unfair advantage in the market. Indeed, not all private organizations have access to public money, and they must compete in the market accordingly. Thus, any organization that does receive public funds holds an advantage over the rest, for it may rely upon this governmental aid to assist in its profits. For this reason, the government should be entirely neutral concerning the market, adopting a laissez faire position to ensure free transactions. Such a position eliminates the option of publicly funding a new stadium.
This argument is not to say that the Tigers should not build a new stadium; indeed, they have every right to determine where they will provide their services. As a private organization, however, it should fund its own expenditures, and not burden the taxpayers of Michigan with unnecessary costs.