Question for AC experts

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Right, but if most people purchase those services, any one individual can take a free ride on the others' need.

[/ QUOTE ]

soon2be-
What exactly is the problem here? Don't start with the assumption that a free rider is bad, start by explaining why it is a problem that needs to be fixed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's a start: allowing free riders delays problem solving, because it financially incents people not to commit their own resources to resolving the issue, hoping instead that someone else will do so.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Right, but if most people purchase those services, any one individual can take a free ride on the others' need.

[/ QUOTE ]

soon2be-
What exactly is the problem here? Don't start with the assumption that a free rider is bad, start by explaining why it is a problem that needs to be fixed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's a start: allowing free riders delays problem solving, because it financially incents people not to commit their own resources to resolving the issue, hoping instead that someone else will do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? Taking the time to weigh options is a part of ALL economic calculations. The ability to choose between options is considered a benefit when buying a breakfast cereal or hiring a doctor, what is it about free rider issues that makes having choice suddenly something that needs to be "fixed"?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a free market system people can start selling their products and services to whomever thinks they are valuable. Is security your value? Then someone may just supply it. Is garbage disposal your value? Then someone may just supply it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but if most people purchase those services, any one individual can take a free ride on the others' need.

How do you theoretically solve this problem?

[/ QUOTE ]


I think you are misunderstanding. The people who are involved in this equation of trade choose to do so. They want to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Right, but if most people purchase those services, any one individual can take a free ride on the others' need.

[/ QUOTE ]

soon2be-
What exactly is the problem here? Don't start with the assumption that a free rider is bad, start by explaining why it is a problem that needs to be fixed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's a start: allowing free riders delays problem solving, because it financially incents people not to commit their own resources to resolving the issue, hoping instead that someone else will do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

So all this person has to do to fix it is *stop waiting*! We're supposed to "fix" a problem where the "victim" has complete control of the situation??? He's CHOOSING to wait for freebies! OH NOES!

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]

soon2be-
What exactly is the problem here? Don't start with the assumption that a free rider is bad, start by explaining why it is a problem that needs to be fixed.

[/ QUOTE ]

It entices competition and even parasitism instead of cooperation.

[SHOwnsYou]

I think why the OP believes this is such a large problem is because something such as violence suppression or national security is necessarily going to be a concern.

The OP does make an assumption however, that only some will realize it as a future concern, leaving it to others to foot the now bloated bill.

The question now appears to be Assuming someone either wants security enough to pay a large sum while others pay nothing, or simply doesn't realize someone else may come along and pay his share down the line, what is done to promote fairness and discourage freeloading?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

soon2be-
What exactly is the problem here? Don't start with the assumption that a free rider is bad, start by explaining why it is a problem that needs to be fixed.

[/ QUOTE ]

It entices competition and even parasitism instead of cooperation.

[/ QUOTE ]

But there is no "fix" for these issues. There HAS to be competition as there are fixed quantities of goods to go around.

Parasitism is also not necessarily bad as it can enable fuller use out of resources. Individuals who benefit from spillover effects can be viewed as being more efficient, using goods that would otherwise go unused. The attempts to fix these problems naturally lead to waste and inefficiency since the "problem" being tackled is one of efficiency. Lets say you hire a security guard to patrol your property at night, I (your next door neighbor) receive some of the benefit of having a person walking around with a flashlight scaring off potential intruders. I am essentially increasing the overall effectiveness of the service you are paying for without increasing the cost or the use of resources. If I am forced to pay an equal share though I will demand the same benefits as you, so that one patrolman will now have to cover both our properties and likely more resources will have to be used.

[soon2bepro]

You're picking and choosing. There are many other examples where this doesn't work like that.

In an ideal communist system for example, the people as a whole has an incentive to pay for security at a state owned factory, for example. Or a bank. Or wherever security is most needed.

In an ideal capitalist system with state intervention, the state doesn't pay for all security, only that which the average citizen will find value for. And private security still exists.

However, as far as I understand it, in a perfect AC system, there are things that just don't get done. Rational agents will look at things in a Prisoner's dillema way and decide that betraying is much better than cooperating, so everyone ends paying more for the same thing, or not being able to afford it at all.