Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!zehntel!vlsvax1!qantel!lll-crg!lll-lcc!vecpyr!amd!pesnta!pyramid!decwrl!decvax!yale!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: Hockey
Message-ID: <28200288@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Nov-85 20:14:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200288
Posted: Tue Nov 12 20:14:00 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Nov-85 21:30:32 EST
References: <242@gargoyle.UUCP>
Lines: 130
Nf-ID: #R:gargoyle:-24200:inmet:28200288:000:6891
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Nov 12 20:14:00 1985


>/* Written 12:34 pm  Nov 11, 1985 by carnes@gargoyle in inmet:net.politics.t */
>...
>But what if both of the following statements are true:
>
>1.  Each player prefers to play without a helmet, regardless of
>whether anyone else is wearing a helmet or not; AND
>
>2.  Given a choice between
>
>    A.  everyone NOT wearing a helmet, including himself; and
>    B.  everyone wearing a helmet, including himself;
>
>everyone would prefer B to A.  
>
>Then what do you do?  If these statements are true, there arises a
>multi-person Prisoner's Dilemma, a.k.a. a free-rider problem.  If
>somehow everyone was wearing a helmet at the beginning of the match,
>players would simply remove them, and they would end up at A instead
>of the preferred alternative B.  The same problem arises even when
>everyone prefers C, "N players wearing a helmet, including
>himself," to A, where N is some number > 1.
>
>In real life, free-rider problems are sometimes overcome, in
>different ways.  One way is through making the individually
>unpreferred option mandatory, the dreaded coercive solution.  Another
>is through "solidarity" or "class consciousness," which is just a
>name for the empirically observed phenomenon that people sometimes
>make the collectively rather than individually rational choice, as
>often in strikes and revolutions.  Another way is through
>irrationality:  the individual thinks "if I choose my unpreferred
>option, everyone else will too" (magical thinking).  Another
>explanation might be moral inculcation or indoctrination:  e.g.,
>people could be strict Kantians and always act so that they could
>will their maxim to be a universal law.
>
>The point is that it is a problem, both normative and explanatory.
>The normative (practical) problem is often a very serious one, e.g.,
>how do we overthrow a dictatorship if each individual would risk his
>neck by becoming a revolutionary?  How do we reduce the risk of
>nuclear war, or reduce violent crime, or reduce death and injuries on
>the streets owing to nonuse of seatbelts?  The explanatory problem is
>how to explain why free-riding is sometimes overcome and sometimes is
>not.  For example, no one really has a good explanation of how and
>why revolutions occur.

I think you're mixing microcosmic game theory with large-scale reality:
In microcosmic game theory, the "public good" is NEVER supplied, because
the assumption is that each person will act in his own best interest,
and that each person is rational, and there are no ways of binding 
future consequences to present double-crosses.  For example, in
the prisoner's dilemma, it's seldom pointed out that the possibility
of double-crossing the other fellow carries with it the danger of
being killed by his friends, or that he'll be pretty angry when he
gets out, or that other criminals, knowing you squealed, will not
wish to risk working with you.  

If I remember right, Tim Sevener tried to attack the libertarian notions
of the market and what it means on the basis of the simplifying 
assumptions normally used to explain microcosmic economics to folks
(perfect, free information, comparability of all products of a given type).
It sounds to me as if you've fallen into the trap Sevener was 
worrying about.  There would, indeed, be no revolution if the
government took care that everyone was just below the boiling point, but
governments don't do this -- they can't.

While I have no comprehensive theoretical reason for why revolutions
occur, I do have a suggestion.  An undesirable government doesn't
treat all its citizens exactly alike (at least, they haven't to date), and
also, some of its citizens will react differently to similar treatment.

This sort of variation is, I think, quite healthy.  Some folks despise
a dictatorship more than they value their own safety.  As is the case
with any public good, we are no doubt undersupplied with revolutionaries,
but NOT entirely lacking them.  If you're a wealthy shopkeeper under
Idi Amin, you won't rebel, but you might if his soldiers rape and kill
your sister.  In practice, the government is different things to different
people, not one "average" thing.  For some of these people, the government
is more dangerous, more horrible, than the risk to their lives entailed
in rebelling.  These folks rebel.

What does it mean when a good is "undersupplied"?  It means that less
than the optimal amount of the good will be called forth for the
demand.  It would certainly be nice if revolutions occurred by the
simultaneous decision of almost everyone in the country to rebel
("Morning, dear, feel like a revolution?"  "Yes indeed honey, and
all our neighbors will to") which would result in rather quiet
executions of people like Hitler, but this doesn't happen --
the fires of rebellion, like almost all real fires, start in spots
and then spread.  

>The libertarian solution to everything seems to be "let the free
>market solve the problem."  

Sorry, was that "Richard Carnes"... or "Richard *canard*"?

Libertarians are against initiation of force or fraud.  We've no
objection to charity, do-gooder not-for-profit organizations,
families caring for their own elderly, or people spending money on
clearly lost causes -- so long as it is THEIR money.  This notion
that because libertarians regard the free market as a great resource
ignores the fact that libertarians regard the free market as ONE
OUTCOME of freedom and property.  It is *NOT* the only outcome
(charity is another) and this is *NOT* the first time I've said it.

So if it seems to you that the libertarian solution to everything
is to let the free market solve it, then you're simply ignoring
the record.

>But the free market "works" only in cases
>where the costs and benefits of actions are accepted *voluntarily* by
>everyone, so libertarians advocate private ownership of everything to
>internalize costs and benefits.  But this solution is utopian, i.e.,
>totally unrealistic.  In the real world, a person's actions
>unavoidably impose costs and benefits on other people, whether anyone
>wants them to or not.  It is an inescapable fact of social life, and
>cannot be eliminated by imposing a regime of private control of
>objects, land, air, etc.

And it is supposed to be impossible to impose costs on other people?
Hold your breath, mac, because there are germs that other people
have spread around.  Should you be able to sue them if you get sick?
Should the government be able to round them up and lock them away
if you get sick?  Of course not.  The government shouldn't be in 
the business of making all outcomes equal regardless of what
people do.  It should not be used to get you a job that you 
wanted if you lose it to someone who hustles more.  Has that someone
"harmed" you?  In one sense, yes.  Do you have the right to ask
for government initiation of force against such a person?  Of course
not!