Wednesday, June 25, 2008

The Invalid Presuppositions Behind the Free Rider Problem

Free rider problem cannot be solved.

One example of an absurdness of the free rider problem is the utility. Politicans lie that we need to solve free rider problem for "defense." This is an example of subjective value, that foreigners are threats to us. This demonstrates that value is subjective so one person that thinks that we need funding but some people do not need military funding.

One example of the absurdness of the free rider problem is the emphasis on numeric.
If 99% of people agree that global warming needs to be funded but 1% does not agree, the 1% is a free rider. But if 1% agree that global warming needs to be funded and 99% does not agree 99% is a free rider. Neither group is corrupt. The free rider problem is dependent on majoritarianism. Even if 99% say it requires funding because of the free rider problem, it does not state that if global warming is actually true. Even if the 1% free riders does not fund, it does not mean that the other 99% is correct, similarily the reverse 99% 1%. Hence, free rider problem is a problem of it actually requires funding.

Therefore, free rider is based on the assumption that the funding is required. It is also egalitarian. it assumes that everyone needs it, including th 1% or 99%. And our current arguments for the free rider problem can be solved by market anarchism. And sometimes we do not actually need market funding. It is also utilitarian.

There are solutions. People can come up with a reasonable way for funding by giving contracts to see if they accept the methods of funding. If given a contract that
states that a rich person should fund more than a poor, they have to all agree to it.

Also, this suggests that the free rider problem is based on imperfect information of the number of people that agree to fund. If the individuals know who would fund or not, they can resolve in a efficient allocation. But because free riders frequently hide their actions if they would fund or not, they are hiding information. Because imperfect information, people would think that other people would fund.

Open source has perfect information so some people have an incentive to develop open source software.

Firms would work together for defense, they would come up with a solution similar to nuclear disarment between states they would reduce this to optimal. So automatically people would reduce their funding despite the free rider problem.

The Insurance Solution

Deregulate traffic controls, and let the market solve it. Every less state regulation gives an opportunity for the market to innovate a solution.

Suppose that the state discontinued its operations of traffic lights, while keeping all other traffic regulations intact. 

If the state completely deregualized roads, then removing traffic lights will not result in any problem. It will function as a club good, and private road owners will have the incentive to provide traffic lights.

But this example discusses the problem when the state has suddenly abolished traffic lights, while  the state still controls the roads.

At first, many individuals, even some anarchists, will predict that it will result in failures and slower transportation time. Since the state still publicly provide roads to anyone, discontinuing its provision of traffic lights will presumably cause behavior as in the tragedy of the commons.

However, this does not provide any problem for all drivers. Once eliminating traffic lights, the car insurance firms will have the incentive to rebuild traffic lights themselves. The elimination of traffic lights will result in a flawless, almost instantaneous transition for the firms to build new traffic lights. Once these efficient firms manage traffic lights, they will improve the design and implementation of traffic lights, with innovative and  safety features.

This traffic light example behaves similar to the lighthouse problem. While water exemplifies the lighthouse scenario, roads exemplify this scenario.

Defending state regulation, even regulations that supposedly fixes other regulations, resembles  an individual advocating theft by taxation. Every regulation enforced by the state hinders the opportunity for the market to provide an alternative.

Even in some rare cases when deregulation makes ``society" worse off, it will instigate pressure from the population to fix its things.

No comments: