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: <34@calgary.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 12-Jan-86 22:28:21 EST
Article-I.D.: calgary.34
Posted: Sun Jan 12 22:28:21 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 13-Jan-86 02:42:55 EST
References: <20@calgary.UUCP> <2679@umcp-cs.UUCP> <567@qantel.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta
Lines: 21

> One major weakness of the scheme outlined by Radford is that it does not
> distinguish between abstention and active opposition to the construction of
> the dam. If I am against building the dam (on environmental or economic
> grounds, let's say) then I am free to take out full-page ads in the local
> papers urging people not to contribute but this does not change the fact
> that only 'yes' votes are counted.
> 
> Gabor Fencsik                  {ihnp4,dual,lll-crg,hplabs}!qantel!gabor

The scheme is an attempt to solve the Free Rider problem of how to 
finance projects which will benefit everyone if they benefit anyone. If some
people are actually harmed, we have another problem to handle also - one
traditionally "solved" by use of eminent domain and political definitions
of acceptable costs. I was not attempting to solve this problem. 

For now, you can imagine any proposal to build a dam in this way being
subject to the usual constraints of any private project, e.g. they will have
to buy the land that gets flooded first, if they cause water pollution they
may be sued, etc.

     Radford Neal