From: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Freeloading Problem (was: California Libraries in Dire Need)
Keywords: taxes freeloading
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:49:15 GMT
Reply-To: asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Distribution: ca
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks

Written by mitch%coriolis.uucp@usc.edu:

: The reason we force people to contribute to worthwhile projects, instead 
: of just letting them decide to do so, is called "Freeriding."  People are 
: tempted not to pay their share and just take the benefits of others 
: contributions.

Free-Riding IS a serious problem.  However, IMHO, it's not nearly as
severe as the alternatives we've chosen.

Take a look at parking lots for an example.  A private company builds it
for its private use, and that of its customers.  But occasionally someone
who is NOT a customer uses it as a short-cut.

What are the options?  They can put up a fence, thereby preventing both
the free-riders and their customers from entering.  They can hire a
guard, who can query each entering individual, thus annoying their cus-
tomers to the point of shopping elsewhere.

They can hire a sniper to watch people who enter, and if they leave 
without stopping to shop, the sniper can pop a hot one right between the 
eyes.  Of course, the sniper would have to be very careful to make 
certain he didn't pop folks who were shopping yesterday, or who planned 
to shop tomorrow.

Or, they can tell the govt to simply tax the entire planet to make sure
that everybody pays their "fair share" of the parking lot, whether or 
not they're a customer, whether or not they scoot across the lot as a 
shortcut, whether or not they've even heard of the silly place.

Or, they can do what most people do, and simply ignore the free-riders.

What you are saying, in essense, that we hire govt snipers to pop
anybody who hasn't paid their "fair share" of the "parking lot tax."

I'd prefer to just ignore the free-riders in most circumstances, because
I think that in most circumstances the situation isn't so serious as to
require so severe a penalty.  The only way to prevent the crime is worse 
than the crime itself.

: When I pay to educate a child, thirty years later 
: everyone else is better off.  If we all pay, and especially if we all pay 
: over time to more or less smooth out the investment curves, we all 
: profit.

If we "profit" from educating other people's kids, we will do so no
matter who pays.  SO, why not let the PRIMARY beneficiary put in the
PRIMARY payments?  That eliminates the "free-rider" problem entirely.
Anyone who feels like contributing is free to do so.

After all, it's not like "society" is getting a "free ride" when parents
put their own kids thru school.  Parents and their children already make 
up the bulk of society, so the fraction of people without kids who 
indirectly "benefit" is not enough to be concerned about their "free ride."

: So are schools a good investment?  That's what we have a political system 
: to decide.

Which brings us back to the concept of the "tyranny of the majority."

We, the duly appointed Majority Voters, have decided that You, the
foolish Minority Voters and Non-Voters, shall pay Us one half of your
income, because We have decided it's Best for Everybody.

: If 1)Schools are a good investment and 2)they are Public 
: goods, things best paid for publicly, we should tax for them.
:
: I KNOW you're going to jump over 2, so I'll explain that carefully.  

No you don't.  I happen to think schools, as implemented currently, are
not a particularly good investment, considering the return we get.
(Nyaah, so there!)

Perhaps you mean schools, in principle, are a good investment.  I can't
argue with that, of course.  It's like being "against" family values or
Mom's Apple Pie!

: Public Goods are those where the power of the police state (yes, I know 
: it's an evil nasty thing to libertarians but it DOES have its purposes) 

Certainly.  We disagree to what those purposes are, that's all.  You
would evidently have the police state enforcing all sorts of "nice
things" at the point of a gun.  Get that parking lot tax started!

: [the state]
: is necessary to capture externalities which otherwise would be improperly 
: distributed and discourage the expenditure.

Once you prove that the state has the wisdom to make those decisions,
you might be able to convince me.

: If we were allowed as individuals 
: to ignore the benefits we've received and the benefits our investment 
: will confer on others, this virtuous chain would break and we'd all be 
: the poorer for it.

"Virtuous chain" ???  You call forcing people at the point of a gun to
contribute to your favorite charities "virtuous?"  I must have misspelled
something somewhere, help me out here.

: So once we have collectively decided that something is worth Public 
: Expenditure, we don't let individuals selfishly opt out.

I understand the reasoning behind it.  I disagree with that reasoning.
The reasoning is simple: We, the duly appointed Voting Majority, etc.

Further, "we" usually don't decide on much.  We have rep's who do what
they think we want, typically without so much as telling us.  If they
just happen to send a few extra $$ in directions which benefit them-
selves and their cohorts, so much the better, since *_obviously_* we'd
vote them out if we didn't *_approve_* of their corruption.

: That's the 
: Prisoner's Dillemma (why would they want to opt out of a good thing?) and 
: I've gone through that with you in the past, so I hope the above helps 
: explain it.

Yes, we have gone thru the "prisoner's dilemma" and I thot we came to 
the agreement that it has no bearing on real life, since it necessarily 
over-simplifies?  Since it has no value outside of entertaining college
professors, why even bring it up?

: Mitch

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, batteries not included, void where prohibited.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program.