Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site csd2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!cmcl2!csd2!sykora
From: sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Solution to Free Rider problem
Message-ID: <4340041@csd2.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-Jan-86 15:01:00 EST
Article-I.D.: csd2.4340041
Posted: Fri Jan  3 15:01:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Jan-86 22:17:56 EST
References: <20@calgary.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 60

/* csd2:net.politics.theory / lkk@teddy.UUCP /  2:39 pm  Jan  2, 1986 */

>How many people do you know who are rational?

Well, we know of at least one that isn't.

>This is a major flaw in
>libertarian thinking, assuming rational agents.  People rationalize, but
>thats not the same thing, is it?

Every one makes decisions with some rationality.  One can often guess the
impact of the rationality on the outcome of the decision.  How does one
guess at the impact of the irrationality?

Everyone is capable of rational thinking to one extent or another, and
evryone is capable of growing in this direction.  Should we implement
policies that encourage people to grow in this direction or policies that
encourage people to grow away from it?  What do you suppose would be the
long term impact if we implement the latter?

>The biggest flaw in libertarian thinking is, however, the notion that
>people are independent free agents.  That one can exist in a societal 
>vacuum, just "minding one's business" and dealing with others only on a
>formal or informal contractual basis.  This sounds bad even in theory.

What PRECISELY do you mean by "independent free agents?"
Perhaps you can provide some justification for these claims.
What sort of criticism is "sounds bad?"

>In 
>practice, it doesn't come close to modeling real societies (except perhaps
>the "society" of net.land, which might explain the high number of libertarians
>around.)

Why are you around, Larry?

>>Some advantages absent from governmental schemes:
>>
>>    1) People who truely don't benefit don't pay. (e.g. those who
>>       don't mind floods, don't think the dam will work, think it
>>       costs too much relative to the benefit for them).

>How many people to you know who LIKE FLOODS?

Well, there used to be this guy called Noah . . .

>A statement like this 
>shows just how detached from reality libertarians are.  Nobody likes floods,
>yet some people won't pay.  How do you explain this and deal with it?

You're gonna get a heart attack if you keep jumping so far to conclusions.
It is not clear that he was postulating that there are people who like floods.
More likely, he was stating that if such people were involved, they wouldn't
have to pay for it, as an illustration of the fact that under such schemes,
whoever does not wish to participate  --  for whatever reason  --  doesn't
have to.

>Larry Kolodney     (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa

Mike Sykora