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!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!cca!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Solution to Free Rider problem
Message-ID: <28200516@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 5-Jan-86 23:08:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200516
Posted: Sun Jan  5 23:08:00 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 9-Jan-86 17:46:52 EST
References: <20@calgary.UUCP>
Lines: 49
Nf-ID: #R:calgary:-2000:inmet:28200516:000:2050
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Jan  5 23:08:00 1986


[laura@l5]
>As far as I can tell, there are two  sorts  of  free-riders  that
>some people think should be coerced.

>Type A:
>	This guy really and sincerely believes that the Good Thing is not worth
>	his money.  [ ... ]

>Type B:
>	This guy really and sincerely believes that the Good Thing is worth his
>	money.  But it will get done without him, so why should he bother [...]

Valid distinction, but there is a 3d type, probably the most important.

Type C:
	This gal really and sincerely believes that the Good Thing is worth her
	money.  And she is willing to do her share, *provided others do
	theirs*. But, there being no guarantee, she does not.

This is the classical Prisoner's Dilemma - but with two
crucial distinctions:
(1) There is an exchange of benefits, not of harm.
A prisoner cannot incrementally *unsqueal*, once he has squealed.
(2)  *Communication is possible*.

Radford Neal's scheme makes use of these differences.   It  is  a
general  solution for type C.  On popular issues like defense or
charity, I believe this category to be the most numerous.  It  is
also  *articulate*  (as is A) whereas B is typically shy to voice
its position.

The moral side of the issue (I am appealing  to  common  feeling,
not to specifically libertarian sensibilities):

Type C deserves something better than to be coerced. The right to
coerce  the  conscientious  objector  type  A  is doubtful . That
leaves type B - the willing free riders. OK, they are that  -  on
this one issue. They may be contributing more than their share on
something else. Radford's scheme simply ignores them, in the hope
that some of them may come on board, if they see that it is *not*
being done without them; and it lets the rest have a  free  ride.
My  guess  is  that it would work. After all, even the income tax
system worked for a long time, with very little enforcement. (Now
it  is breaking down, with a lot of enforcement). Charities work,
too, and collect more and more.  And  neither  of  them  has  the
advantages of this scheme.

		Jan Wasilewsky