General

Re: Free-Rider Military question

Ark de Grande — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 19:18:31 GMT

How about this? http://fringeelements.tumblr.com/search/defense

Re: Free-Rider Military question

Marko — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:44:25 GMT

Look, try to think of a person who cleans garbage from the streets because it gives them joy to make the streets cleaner and does it not expecting anything from us. In relation to such a person all who move about on the streets in question and value clean streets are free riders.

Now think of a person who cleans garbage because he gets paid to do it, via voluntary donations. In this case everyone who does not contribute to the garbage cleaner is a free rider to those who do.

But now think of a person who cleans garbage in part because he is paid by residents, and in part because they like doing it. Let us say that neither motivation would be sufficient for this person to do the job on its own. In which case everyone who likes the streets in question clean is again in part a free rider even if they are residents and help pay this guy. They benefit, they get a discount, because this guy likes cleaning garbage from the streets somehwat.

Now imagine there is a person who cleans garbage because he likes to be thanked for doing it. He cleans garbage and in return he recieves pats on the back from grateful streetgoers, which he counts as sufficient counter-service. In this case the people who like the streets in question clean, but do not pat the street-cleaner on the back are free riders to people who do.

Do you now begin to understand the problem with making free riders a problem?

If a person goes to war (to defend a libertarian society) there could be half a dozen categories of various free riders just in connection to him. Eg if someone does it in part because it shall increase his success with the female sex, then all the geezers who benefit from his service are automaticaly free riders to all the chicks who digg him better now. So now how do you even begin to eliminate the 'problem' of the free rider? Does anyone think this is a problem that needs saving? So what changes when you talk about money rather than all the possible other motivations? Why is it that all the other categories of free riders are not a problem that needs solving, but this one alone is?

(This without touching on my previous point, that serving free riders (eg ones family, settlement, love interest...) may (and will be) a motivation in itself, particularly when talking about something as crazy as going to war.)

Re: Free-Rider Military question

Marko — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:30:46 GMT

An interesting argument. But does it apply even when expected mortality among active defenders is less than 100%?

Yes. I believe taking on a say 15% chance of being killed or maimed is a significant sacrifice. Eg, if you played the Russian roulette so that you could be certain your sweetheart does not have to then that's your sacrifice on her behalf even if you don't end up with a bullet lodged in your brain, but walk away unscathed.

They would do it for a chance to survive and to continue enjoying their liberty, at least such motivation is not excluded.

True. But realistically speaking if you're only in it for yourself it makes much more sense to emigrate to New Zealand and be partly free than taking on a chance to get your head blown off. The only way I can see it in significant numbers is if it is a matter of principle. Eg a person going all defiant and making a personal stand against the agressor just on the principle that he won't be pushed around period.

Re: Free-Rider Military question

Malachi — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:08:47 GMT

Prime:

Malachi:
no one has yet established the free-rider getting the same services as the paying customer, hence the lack of a problem.

Of course we have. There is no feasable way for a security firm to single out the free rider in the event of all out war. I think you seriously underestimate the impossibility of singling out the free rider in such an event.

There is no need to "single out" any noncustomer. There is only a need to protect the customer. If you think that I can pay an EP detail or special operations squad to protect me, and you can get the exact same protection by standing next to me, you are wrong. Likewise if you think I can pay a firm to set up a missile defense system for my house, and you can receive identical protection by building a house next to me, you are wrong. I will repeat, there is no need to single out a free rider, there is only a need to provide services to the customer.

Re: Free-Rider Military question

Andris Birkmanis — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:17:31 GMT

Libertarian society will have people who will be willing to sacrifice to defend it (and who therefore literally need free riders who make their sacrifice worth it)

An interesting argument. But does it apply even when expected mortality among active defenders is less than 100%? They would do it for a chance to survive and to continue enjoying their liberty, at least such motivation is not excluded.

Re: Free-Rider Military question

Marko — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:43:54 GMT

You may as well be asking how do you get rid of free rider in charity. You don't, without a free rider, you don't have charity. It is the same when we are talking about war. Ultimately no one may pay you to take part in a bloody war. Such money does not exist. People may only take part in a bloody war if they are coerced into it, think it may be exciting and think it may get them status and recognition, or as a form of charity (sacrafice) on their part (service to homeland, defense of their people, helping out their primary group). The idea many libertarians have that group of people A paying group of people B to defend them is feasible and realistic way of defending against a serious military threat is silly. It won't work because if the B people are only doing it for money they will flee when it gets serious. Libertarian society will have people who will be willing to sacrifice to defend it (and who therefore literally need free riders who make their sacrifice worth it), or there simply won't be any such society because it will fold in the face of first military threat.

Re: Free-Rider Military question

Prime — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:19:37 GMT

Malachi:
no one has yet established the free-rider getting the same services as the paying customer, hence the lack of a problem.

Of course we have. There is no feasable way for a security firm to single out the free rider in the event of all out war. I think you seriously underestimate the impossibility of singling out the free rider in such an event.

Re: Free-Rider Military question

Malachi — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:32:41 GMT

Not if they can get them for free, hence the problem.

no one has yet established the free-rider getting the same services as the paying customer, hence the lack of a problem.

Buying a bundle containing both a military protection policy and a criminal protection policy may result in a lower total cost than if the policies were bought separately, but it cannot have a lower cost than just a criminal protection policy.

I was referring to insuring against damage versus purchasing a protection policy that includes insurance. If you have protection, your insurance will cost less. If you do not have protection, simple insurance might very well cost more than a protection policy bundled with insurance.

Re: Free-Rider Military question

Minarchist — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:04:14 GMT

Malachi:
the bundling of insurance services with protection contracts, which the free-rider neighbors would not have the benefit of, paying higher rates for a standalone insurance policy.

Buying a bundle containing both a military protection policy and a criminal protection policy may result in a lower total cost than if the policies were bought separately, but it cannot have a lower cost than just a criminal protection policy. And it can't be that consumer's have no option but to buy the unwanted military protection policy along with the criminal protection policy, since given a free market, a new firm can always arise to offer standalone criminal protection policies to those who desire them.

Re: Free-Rider Military question

Prime — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 06:56:00 GMT

Malachi:
I will also point out that many examples of how a private law society may work include the bundling of insurance services with protection contracts, which the free-rider neighbors would not have the benefit of, paying higher rates for a standalone insurance policy.

Now you may be on to something here. I can see how an insurance policy may offer lower rates for members who contract with a private defense firm, thus encouraging the free rider to purchase private defense.

Re: Free-Rider Military question

Minarchist — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 06:38:03 GMT

Malachi:
This isnt a problem because the person in need of services, who has the money, will buy the services.

Not if they can get them for free, hence the problem.

Re: Free-Rider Military question

Malachi — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 01:36:46 GMT

This isnt a problem because the person in need of services, who has the money, will buy the services. I am illustrating how it would be feasible to provide those services to a client and not his next-door neighbor, thus negating the free-rider "problem." if someone a) needs defense services and b) can afford to pay for defense services, they will. If they are upset because other people benefit from positive externalities, thats their problem. They have no reason to be upset because their neighbors are getting the same benefits, because their neighbors in fact are not. I will also point out that many examples of how a private law society may work include the bundling of insurance services with protection contracts, which the free-rider neighbors would not have the benefit of, paying higher rates for a standalone insurance policy.

the customers of a defense firm, especially commercial customers, are far more likely to be glad of "free riders" because those people will be customers and employees.

Re: Free-Rider Military question

shackleford — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 01:30:58 GMT

There are plenty of people living in the U.S. who do not pay federal taxes and by extension do not support the military. The structure of U.S. defense is more based on geography but also on population and infrastructure, etc.. Of course, ultimately its job is to protect the citizens of the states, but it's not setup on a per capita basis.

Re: Free-Rider Military question

Prime — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 01:24:36 GMT

Malachi, you seem to be framing your response only from the point of view of the defense firm. The crux of the issue, the problem so to speak, comes from the point of view of the actively paying client, in that they are forced to pay higher prices. Please see my post just before this one for a scenario if yoiu haven't read it yet, and try to address the issue from a different perspective.

Re: Free-Rider Military question

Malachi — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 00:46:59 GMT

Whats interesting is that given the collateral effect of active protection systems, its more likely than not that defense firms wouldnt protect noncustomers from certain precision attacks. A side-attack anti-missile munition puts out a donut of death that cuts through the missile and everything else in that plane for 25-100 m or more. Theres an awful lot of liability associated with detonating one of those in someone's backyard without authorization.