Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site calgary.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!alberta!calgary!radford
From: radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Solution to Free Rider problem
Message-ID: <24@calgary.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 5-Jan-86 21:44:30 EST
Article-I.D.: calgary.24
Posted: Sun Jan  5 21:44:30 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 6-Jan-86 04:11:04 EST
References: <20@calgary.UUCP> <1876@teddy.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta
Lines: 55

> In article <20@calgary.UUCP> radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) writes:
> 
> > [How to build a dam without coercive government interference]
> >
> >The dam gets built as follows:
> >
> >    A promoter for the scheme defines the project and determines how 
> >    much it will cost. He establishes a trust fund to be used to
> >    fund the scheme. Anyone may donate money to the trust fund. No
> >    money is disbursed until the fund contains enough money to 
> >    complete the project. If enough money is not collected by some
> >    specified time, all money is given back to the contributors.
> >
> >Would people contribute? They would if they percieve the benefits as
> >actually exceeding the cost. If a resident thinks the dam is worth 1000 
> >dollars to him, he will rationally contribute up to that amount...
> 
> How many people do you know who are rational?  This is a major flaw in
> libertarian thinking, assuming rational agents.  People rationalize, but
> thats not the same thing, is it?

People certainly are not always rational, but in evaluating a scheme like
this seeing what they rationally would do looks like a good start. You haven't
presented any reason to think people are subject to irrationalities 
relevant to this discussion.

> >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?  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?

As I thought was obvious from the title, the dam bit is *an illustrative
example* of general free-rider situations. The existence of people who
do not benefit from a project which is thought to be generally for the
"public good" is not at all unrealistic. Besides, if you use your imagination,
you can come up with any number of people who don't benefit from flood 
control:

    1) Seasonal residents who don't live there during the flood season
       and whose houses are in safe spots.

    2) People running a wilderness park where floods are actually an
       advantage in maintaining the original ecology.

    3) Farmers who think they gain more in soil fertility from floods
       than they loose in later planting time.

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

      Radford Neal