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!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!burdvax!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittatc!decvax!cca!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: Solution to Free Rider problem (
Message-ID: <28200523@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 7-Jan-86 17:06:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200523
Posted: Tue Jan  7 17:06:00 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 12-Jan-86 21:28:58 EST
References: <23@calgary.UUCP>
Lines: 38
Nf-ID: #R:calgary:-2300:inmet:28200523:000:1928
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Jan  7 17:06:00 1986


>[Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka]
>In article <2679@umcp-cs.UUCP> flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V Torek) writes:
>>A solution to the free-rider problem would be very important in its own
>>right.
>
>So would trisecting the angle.  The free-rider problem is a mathematical
>fact, which can and sometimes does apply to real world situations.
>Restricting the range of possible actions (as by categorically ruling out
>the use of force) makes it more likely to be applicable; and often when
>it is applicable there are actions which can be taken which reduce the
>harm resulting from it; but there is no solution in general.

"Problem is a fact" is ambiguous. It can mean :(1) the FR problem
is a mathematical *problem* that may or may not have a solution -
in which case the comparison to angle trisection begs  the  ques-
tion; or (2) it is a mathematical problem proven to have no solu-
tion under certain assumptions which may or may not be applicable
to  real  life.  In which case a general solution for *real life*
situations (under some other set of assumptions) is  thinkable.
Only a *real-life* counterexample would preclude such a solution.

>Restricting the range of possible actions (as by categorically ruling out
>the use of force) makes it more likely to be applicable...

This sounds plausible - at the first glance.  But  *does*  ruling
out  the use of force merely *restrict* range of action *by a so-
ciety* ? No, it restricts it in some  directions  and  also  *ex-
pands*  it in others. Because members of the society may now plan
their actions under  the  assurance  that  force  won't  be  used
against them. This is a very practical matter - e.g., instability
of tax laws does chill  business  activity,  and  possibility  of
confiscation (where it is present) freezes investment.

Generally, *force* generates *fear* ; and a fearful society has
a *narrowed* range of action.

                Jan Wasilewsky