The Free-Rider Problem

[Real Korimyr #9]

What are the serious theoretical flaws?

Re-read the thread. You attempt to address the biggest one, but your response isn't entirely convincing.

 

[nonpareil]

I'm not sure, actually. Do you think that people could arrange to protect their property, adjudicate disputes, and defend their territory without government? The only reason I think it can't work is because I am not aware of any such societies ever existing. How would this all be accomplished without government.

Depend on the definition of government, there are many tribes that have no form of government as we know it in modern society, but who were able to protect their property, adjudicate disputes, and defend their territory.

I guess nobody's ever explained satisfactorily how, in the absence of government, people could provide police, courts, and a military for themselves. If you have any ideas, I'm willing to listen, however.

As I have said: by private means. There are security services that provide protection in lieu of the police, private arbitrage court, and mercenaries. If you deem the government not good for other function, why is it good for these functions and not for others?

 

[nonpareil]

Sorry...I shouldn't have assumed you'd be able to easily see how this applies to democrats complaining about too much defense spending and republicans complaining about too much welfare spending.

You shouldn't. You should explain every arguement you make clearly if you are able to, which you haven't shown yourself able.

If you had trouble understanding my definition then all you had to do was look on Wikipedia...allocative efficiency.

I'm not arguing with wikipedia, I'm arguing with you, what's the point of reading wikipedia only to have you claim that it's not what you believe? Further, I would like to see if you actually understand what you are saying, the ability to define what you are talking about in your own words will go towards proving that, pasting a wiki link does not.

 

[Centinel]

I'm not sure, actually. Do you think that people could arrange to protect their property, adjudicate disputes, and defend their territory without government? The only reason I think it can't work is because I am not aware of any such societies ever existing. How would this all be accomplished without government.

Depend on the definition of government, there are many tribes that have no form of government as we know it in modern society, but who were able to protect their property, adjudicate disputes, and defend their territory.

I suppose you're right. But how would such a system work in a modern society?

I guess nobody's ever explained satisfactorily how, in the absence of government, people could provide police, courts, and a military for themselves. If you have any ideas, I'm willing to listen, however.

As I have said: by private means. There are security services that provide protection in lieu of the police, private arbitrage court, and mercenaries. If you deem the government not good for other function, why is it good for these functions and not for others?

Perhaps you're right. I honestly can't come up with a good reason why your idea would not work. What you are proposing is essentially anarchy, correct?

 

[Xerographica]

Re-read the thread. You attempt to address the biggest one, but your response isn't entirely convincing.

I re-read the thread but failed to identify any theoretical flaws that I did not sufficiently address. Which flaw was it?

 

[Xerographica]

You shouldn't. You should explain every arguement you make clearly if you are able to, which you haven't shown yourself able.

I'm not arguing with wikipedia, I'm arguing with you, what's the point of reading wikipedia only to have you claim that it's not what you believe? Further, I would like to see if you actually understand what you are saying, the ability to define what you are talking about in your own words will go towards proving that, pasting a wiki link does not.

Yeah, I just looked over your comments...do you actually have a critique to make? Or do you still just need me to help you understand what the efficient allocation of public goods means?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I re-read the thread but failed to identify any theoretical flaws that I did not sufficiently address. Which flaw was it?

The most fundamental flaw: there is a profound difference between the government people want and the government people need.

 

[Xerographica]

The most fundamental flaw: there is a profound difference between the government people want and the government people need.

You can't always get what you want? But if you try sometimes...well...you just might find...you get what you need?

I think what's puzzling you is the nature of my game. Can you look over this thread...The Devil's Advocate for Public Goods...and tell me more about this profound difference in terms of public goods?

 

[DVSentinel]

Free riders are a problem to the folks that AREN'T free riders, in a morale since. Imagine going to work everyday, and busting ass, only to find that there are other people at your job doing NOTHING but making the same pay as you. How would that make you feel, and how would that affect your work?


Apply that same concept to the free rider issue.

Hey, you just described a Union run shop, quit that, Unions are for discussion in other threads.

 

[DVSentinel]

The solution to the "Free Rider" problem is simple. An old sticker I once seen on cars sums it up pretty simply.

"Gas, Grass or Ass, nobody rides for free"