Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site x.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!x!wjr From: wjr@x.UUCP (Bill Richard) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Free Riders Message-ID: <800@x.UUCP> Date: Sat, 12-Oct-85 03:04:23 EDT Article-I.D.: x.800 Posted: Sat Oct 12 03:04:23 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 17-Oct-85 07:35:46 EDT References: <3476@topaz.UUCP> <28200073@inmet.UUCP> <567@x.UUCP> <239@umich.UUCP> <779@x.UUCP> <257@umich.UUCP> Reply-To: wjr@x.UUCP (STella Calvert) Organization: Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA Lines: 94 Summary: throw 'em off the bus! Note: This is STella again. I'm still not wjr. In article <257@umich.UUCP> torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) writes: >Libertaria spreads benefits thinly to many Libertaria-ns, only one of whom >is myself. I don't quite see it that way! I am not dying for other people's rights. I am risking my life to punish defection from the game "Non-Aggression." >>... It's in my interest to protect them, because a threat against one >>of us is a threat against us all. > >Yes if you count altruistic concern among your "interests" (the sense of >"interest" being "things you're interested in" rather than "self-interest"). >A narrowly selfish person would think, however, that it was in his interest >to be a free rider: the small chance that *his* support would make the diff- >erence of which side won being outweighed by the sizable chance that >he'd get his ass blown off. In my version of libertaria, a free rider will run little risk of getting killed defending the turf, but a consistent pattern of refusing to pull phagocyte duty will be noticed. I wouldn't try to harm him, I hope my kids would play with his kids, I would talk with his wife, but I wouldn't let _him_ cut my hair, shovel my sidewalk, or charge dinner at my restaurant. He had reneged on one of the conditions I put on my voluntary association, and I therefore will not make another contract with him and provide him with the opportunity to defect. (BTW, yes of course I'd let his wife buy clothing in his size from my store -- she'll love the extra chore, I'm sure. And yes, that assumes that she was nursing, sniping, or otherwise assisting herself. But the kids would always be welcome at my table.) >>I've discussed this in another article, but the nut is this. I will not live >>in a libertaria unless I succeed in selling the idea that coercion must be >>resisted. That it is both stupid and dangerous to surrender to blackmail. >>Unless individual responsibility for safety becomes a widely distributed >>value, there will not be a libertaria to resist nuclear blackmail. >You assert: 1) Libertaria will not arrive unless people come to have these >attitudes you describe. 2) If people have these attitudes nuclear blackmail >will not work, so it won't be used. You hint: 3) these attitudes make >perfect sense Now where did I do that! 8-) Even on the net, perfect people are scarce. I don't think these ideas are perfect. If I did, I'd be writing best-selling propaganda and not trying a walkthrough here! These ideas make sense to me, and I keep on trying to make more sense out of them. But I don't expect to be perfect till sometime next week at the soonest! 8-) >3) is far from obvious; I think many people would have to become a lot >less selfish before they could ever accept 3). 2) I'll grant you, though >I wonder if aggressive states will *realize* the futility of nuclear >blackmail even if it *is* futile. 1) is false: I would accept Libertaria >if I thought that govt was as dangerous and inefficient as most libertarians >think, even though I would never accept the irrational base values most >libertarians take as axioms. (How dangerous and inefficient DO you think government is? Mail, please!) OK. On 1, sure. And if you were willing to protect your interests by punishing aggressors, you're welcome. I'm attempting to think out a set of minimal sufficient common values, and yeah, now that you mention it, I don't care what your motivations are, as long as you refrain from aggression, fraud, and whatever other primitives are defined before we build. Thank you for pointing out that willingness to punish defectors from non-aggression has to be a primitive. To me, with MY blindspots, it was axiomatic to the point of invisibility. Thank you sir! So let me restate. I will not form a libertaria with people who do not agree that any instance of coercion is a threat against their personal right to be free of coercion, nor will I continue to contract with people who renege on this minimal requirement. If that is a condition you dislike, we simply won't live in the same anarchia or move to the same libertaria. If you have some other way of handling the free rider issue, let me hear it. BTW, since I'm fairly new to this group, if you would prefer to send mail, OK, but I want to hear a bit more about "irrational base values". Don't lets carry on a two-person conversation on the net if I missed this whole discussion by "n"ing past a misleading subject title. For 2, well, we might have to lose a couple cities the size of Ann Arbor or Ypsi. Or LA. I'd love a bugfix for that one. _I_ _believe_ that negatively reinforcing terrorists and coercers is worth spending the only life I am willing (or able) to control, mine. I'm not sure that it's the only possible decision for that hypothetical reasonable wo/man, but it's the best I've got yet. And let me repeat! On 3, I don't think these ideas make _perfect_ sense, but I'm not trying to build heaven. Just get by with a little help from people who don't even have to be friends as long as they don't try to kill or control me. STella Calvert (guest on ...!decvax!frog!wjr) Every man and every woman is a star.