Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site umich.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!mb2c!umich!torek
From: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Free Riders
Message-ID: <300@umich.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 17-Oct-85 17:52:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: umich.300
Posted: Thu Oct 17 17:52:02 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Oct-85 04:25:45 EDT
References: <3476@topaz.UUCP> <28200073@inmet.UUCP> <567@x.UUCP> <239@umich.UUCP> <779@x.UUCP> <257@umich.UUCP> <800@x.UUCP>
Reply-To: torek@eecs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 108
Summary: Libertaria sounding better, yet less libertarian

In article <800@x.UUCP> wjr@x.UUCP (STella Calvert) writes:
>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."  

OK. (Though I'd be more inclined to see it as dying for others.)

>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.)

Interesting, and it does hold some promise.  Of course, you will need other
members of the community to treat free-riders similarly.  But that just
might be feasible!  It probably could work on some scale.  Maybe even a
large scale, after some attitudes change -- which, I must admit, is a
realistic hope, Murphy's Lawyers to the contrary notwithstanding.

>>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 

[STella objects to "perfect".  OK, revise that to "plenty of sense"]

>>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!)

News, sorry!  (How else do you expect me to make the Top 25 News Submitters
list?)

It depends on the government.  Ours:  remarkably non-dangerous, but serious-
ly inefficient, but probably NOT so inefficient that it is worse than nothing
in its effect on externality problems (cf. the debate between L. Kolodney,
me, and Nat Howard).

>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.

Good idea -- I've been thinking about minimal sufficient common values myself;
but not for a system of (non-?)government, but rather an open-ended network
of people working on worldwide problems in general, but allowing for wide
(but not total) disagreement (to some extent, such a thing already exists).

>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.

I would heartily agree to such a requirement myself.  In fact, I think lots
of people would, and would take it seriously.

>  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.

I certainly do:  force.  (I didn't say you'd like it!)  Of course, the
instrument of force (i.e. non-minarchist government) creates externality
problems of its own -- no question about that.  Whether these are worse
is a tough empirical question, but I think not -- that is, given most
people's present attitudes toward free-riding.  On the other hand, maybe
we can get people to take the kind of attitude you suggest, in which
case maybe government will no longer be a bargain.

>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 worry.  I was just being a bit iconoclastic, and I was making my
point about 1):  namely, that one doesn't have to be an Ayn Rand fan or
a Robert Nozick fan to be willing to try your kind of society.  

>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 agree; if the terrorists would lose interest after nuking Ann Arbor, and
a population the size of the U.S.'s would be safe thereafter, I think it'd
be worth it -- even though I'd be one of the unlucky few.

>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.

Granted.  (But though they needn't be friends, they still have to do things
that have the effect, roughly, of sticking up for each other.)

--Paul V Torek, the curious iconoclast				torek@umich