posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:37 AM
Free rider problem
This is only a 'problem' (and an unsolvable one absent massive coercion) in a Statist paradigm wherein everyone is *forced* to participate in the
collective system...under such circumstances, anyone who 'opts out' and still receives the 'benefits' normally accrued to coerced parties is
essentially gaining all the benefits of massive violence without being forced to pay into it. Someone who rides the bus without paying into the
transit system is essentially riding on everyone elses toonie.
But since the Statist system relies *fundamentally* on negative sum participants, who the ruling class bribe, at the expense of the producers. Every
person who gains his livelihood via government largess (stolen funds) is in effect a 'free rider', and is more accurately worse, they are indeed
parasites. They dont just consume without producing, they consume *at the expense of production*. Thus the Statist system cannot and will not deal
with the 'free rider' problem, as the Statist system fundamentally *relies* on those that do worse than 'free ride'.
The 'free rider' problem is solved simply by Voluntaryism - under true freedom, no one is forced, at gunpoint, to pay for, or associate with, any
person who they do not wish to subsidize, or give alms to.
when one pays into it, there is a certainty all other people pay (thus also lowering the price for an individual payer).
Not really concerned with your immoral argument from effect, as effects (pro or con) of your proposed violence are basically irrelevant to me.
I dont care how many starving kids you can feed with the loot youve stolen. Your claim of virtue (feeding the needy) is *destroyed* by the act of
*stealing itself*. (as youve destroyed the concept of virtue in the act itself.)
I dont care what worthy cause the mafia promotes after it takes its 'protection money' from me. No moral justification can justify the initial
This is not certain with voluntary charity, leading to sub-optimal Nash-equilibrium for all (when one does not pay, he will receive almost the same
service than one that pays, but with zero loss - thus for a rational actor, it is more advanageous to not pay, and in the end noone from rational
actors will pay). It is also far more predictable and thus more efficient than voluntary charity with variable income and not universal rules for
Frankly dont care. How many charts and graphs do you think it would take to prove to me that you would be justified in robbing me via force?
I seriously dont give a sh*t about how you justify your thuggery.
Maybe more later.