volunteer armies

I personally consider that the idea of sacrificing your earnings - and even your life - just so a few people can enjoy free national defence is about as altruistic as it gets...;-)

I don't think we have anything further to discuss Daniel, neither of us seem interested in being persuaded by the other.
It was good sparing with you.

~E.

Post 41

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 3:58am

Jeff writes:
>Daniel Barnes' supposed "Free Rider" Problem...

*My* problem? My *supposed* problem?? Like I sit around all day inventing entirely imaginary economic problems....

>Unfortunately, where he fails and is trying to trick you all...

... for the purpose of "tricking" people???? Is this kid serious?

Sheesh, what can I say? If you want to know more about the "free-rider" problem check out the Wikipedia or any economics textbook.

>The issue is not whether or not certain altruistic individuals would pay for voluntarily financed defense. The issue is whether proud, self-reliant, patriotic individuals would pay for the defense of themselves, their families, and their country.

Jeff, looks like you've gone off half-cocked here. The issue is neither of the above, nor Capitalism vs Communism, nor anything else in your post. The issue is whether you would like to subsidise the defense of people who do not themselves want to contribute. Because this is what you will be doing, as even though they do not contribute, those people cannot be excluded from the benefit of national defence.

- Daniel

-

Post 42

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 4:08am

Andrew wrote:
>This sounds pretty close to what George Reisman calls the "anarchic conception of freedom," which holds that one is deprived of liberty whenever one is barred from engaging in any action, including such irrational behavior as theft, murder, or shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

Actually, it's closely aligned to the even more famous "dictionary.com conception of freedom":

>freedom (n).
>1. The condition of being free of restraints.

;-)

- Daniel

Post 43

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 4:10am

Eric wrote:
>It was good sparing with you

Likewise. Thank you.

- Daniel

Post 44

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 5:17am

The issue is whether you would like to subsidise the defense of people who do not themselves want to contribute. Because this is what you will be doing, as even though they do not contribute, those people cannot be excluded from the benefit of national defence.

Who gives a rats ass about subsidizing other people? Jealousy is not a virtue. It is a second-handed, petty vice. It is up to each individual to decide where and how he wants to spend his money that he earned. I want to support the defense of myself, my family, my friends and greatest country in history. The "free riders" are irrelevant. The issue is the fatal conceit of some who, thinking they're smarter than others, will force the others to do "what's good for them" in the name of safety, justice, jealousy, or even minimizing coercion.

Post 45

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 6:21am

Robert Bisno wrote:

quote in other words, it sounds like you are saying one only has freedom to be rational and that irrational behaviors must be not be considered as part of freedom but as some sort of unfreedom. so are you saying that there must be no freedom for the irrational because to grant it under the rubric of freedom leads to the anarchic view of freedom and thus opens the way to statist arguments? problem is, if you are saying this, youre still opening the way to statism. drugs, the statist will claim, arent rational, lets ban them! and lets ban heavy metal! and lets ban religion! if you deny a freedom to the irrational qua irrationality, you open the door for some pretty dire unintended philosophic consequences: man must have the right the be stupid if he so chooses, just as he must have a right to be intelligent.

Neither I nor Reisman mean to suggest this. What the rational conception of freedom precludes is any kind of "freedom" or "right" that involves a violation of the life, liberty, or property of others. If someone wants to be irrational with his own life and property, that is certainly no concern of the state's.

quote and also, on the question of yelling "fire" in a theatre, I think it should be legal to do so if the owner permits it.

Fair enough, so long as the theatergoers understand that such mayhem might take place during the course of the performance, else the owner might be guilty of criminal negligence or even fraud.

Daniel wrote:

Like I sit around all day inventing entirely imaginary economic problems.... If you want to know more about the "free-rider" problem check out the Wikipedia or any economics textbook.

Sadly, non-excludibility and free-riders have indeed been used by any number of economists in arguing the case for "market failure" and "public goods," and can certainly be found in just about any econ text. So can the ideas of John Maynard Keynes, which are complete and utter trash. I wouldn't go so far as to characterize the free-rider problem in those terms; yes, certain goods will produce positive externalities for which not all beneficiaries will or can be made to (absent the use of force) pay. However, I think this "problem" isn't really that big of a problem for a couple reasons.

One, I do not agree with the standard economist's view that the free-rider problem will snowball out of control, piling on more and more freeloaders until no one contributes. As has already been pointed out, many charitable organizations are already--despite crushing tax burdens, regulations, and their attendant economic hardship--able to raise very large funds for their causes, many of which produce a benefit even for the free-riders who don't pay. (E.g., I don't contribute to the Red Cross, but they'd be part of the relief effort if I was caught in an earthquake.)

Two, by combining the roles of courts, police, and national defense, a government might be able to exclude those who don't contribute from some much more immediate and pressing needs than national defense. For instance, if a free government were funded by voluntary contract fees, those who refused to pay might still benefit from the national defense, but would be without police and court enforcement of that contract.

Three, as others have pointed out, we have tons of guns.

quoteActually, it's closely aligned to the even more famous "dictionary.com conception of freedom":

>freedom (n).
>1. The condition of being free of restraints.

Yes, dictionary.com's entry begins with this most simplistic of definitions. I am restrained from floating in air by gravity, therefore I am not free. I am restrained from traveling through time by the laws of physics, so I am not free. Or, to use a political example, I am restrained from spraying crude graffiti all over my university's buildings, so I am not free. The entries that are far more appropriate to a political discussion (though not perfectly so):

quote
Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.
Political independence.
Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.

Post 46

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 6:35am

"Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.

Political independence.
Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly. "

Yes: and although this has not been mentioned so far in this discussion, forgive me if I am re-covering old ground here. An important distinction is between proscriptive laws and prescriptive laws. The Objectivist function of government is to protect its clients from violence, a task which requires only proscriptive laws - laws which expressly forbid citizens from performing certain actions. Although there are a number of proscriptive laws (such as the anti-dog-eat-dog rule, the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs, Terrorism and many of the Criminal Justice Acts in the UK) which Objectivists would oppose, it is clear from a moments' thought that a citizen who is prevented from doing certain things is, in general, freer than a citizen who is compelled to do certain things. Prescriptive rules are necessarily anti-freedom as they give a certain course of action for a citizen to follow without hope of negotiation.

A good analogy for this is a mother, who tells her children to play wherever they like, except for the quarry, the railway line, and so on. The children are far freer than if their mother had told them to play in certain places.

Post 47

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 11:42am

Jeff wrote:
>Who gives a rats ass about subsidizing other people?

I take it that means you are fine with it then. Is there a particular limit at which you would *not* want to, or are you happy to subsidise others to the limit that you can afford?

>Jealousy is not a virtue.

What has jealousy to do with the topic at hand?

>I want to support the defense of myself, my family, my friends and greatest country in history. The "free riders" are irrelevant.

To be consistent, Jeff, you will have to amend the above sentence as follows:

"I want to pay to support the defense of myself, my family, my friends, any number of freeloaders, and the greatest country in history"

- Daniel

Post 48

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 12:33pm

>Jealousy is not a virtue.

What has jealousy to do with the topic at hand?

Aren't those who argue that force should be used against the free-riders, jealous? If not, then why else do they care about the free-riders?

From my perspective, force is not an option. If you can't get people to agree that something should be done, then you don't have a solution. Forcing people to join an army because a minority believes that they should be protected from invasion, when many of those conscripted do not share those views, is wrong from an ethical stand-point. If you cannot find the people you need to defend your country, then you don't fight. Same with taxes: take what you can voluntarily, not what you feel you need.

Craig Haynie

Post 49

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 2:19pm

Craig writes:
>Aren't those who argue that force should be used >against the free-riders, jealous?

Well, I suppose at a stretch you could say they're "jealous". But it would be more accurate to say they're "put upon" by, or even "servants" of the free riders. All a free rider has to do is stop paying, and the payers must cover the costs of her defence, whether they like it or not. ( Because if the payers decide to stop paying, there is no defence system for *anyone*). And any number of people can opt into free-riding, because who's going to stop them? So you end up with one portion of the population working involuntarily (because they don't get to choose who or how many or how much they fund) for the benefit of another part of the population. Now, what was it they call that again....?

>From my perspective, force is not an option.

From my perspective, the problem is that it's not your call to make. Force can be exercised against you by a foreign country whether you like it or not. So there is no "force is not an option" scenario to appeal to in the first place.

That's why we must accept the fact of coercion at the outset; and why the problem is more accurately put as "How can we best *minimise* coercion?"

I run through this in my Post 23 above.

- Daniel

Post 50

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 3:23pm

Let's say I give my hypothetical decrepit house and nice new coat of bright shiny yellow paint because I want to live in a bright shiny yellow house and not an old peeling run-down house. I do this because I want to. The neighbors no longer have to see the old paintjob. Their lives are better. The neighborhood becomes nicer and their houses become more valuable. They are now richer. Apparently they are free riders, because I did something that I wanted to do and they benefited. According to Mr. Barnes, it is now right and proper that I go around with a gun and collect money from each and every neighbor, lest they "get away" with free riding. It is a nice rationalizing for forcing people to do what you want them to do.

This is analogous to defense. I pay for defense because I want defense. Whether or not other people benefit is irrelevant unless I am ruled by jealousy. If I want more defense, I can pay more or try to convince others to pay more. But, to quote Craig, force is not an option. To those of you who don't realize that this is an Objectivist site for Objectivists, "force is not an option" means the initiation of force is not an option for rational men. Whether or not an enemy invades or might invade does not change this.

PS, I'm aware that Mr. Barnes did not invent this problem, but I call it his problem, because this is a board for Objectivists, and most Objectivists that I'm aware of are smart enough to see through the fallacy. He's the one who brings it out triumphantly, as though he's found the magic rationalization for shooting people who don't agree with him to pony up for the collective good.

Post 51

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 5:37pm

Jeff writes:
>Let's say I give my hypothetical decrepit house and nice new coat of bright shiny yellow paint because I want to live in a bright shiny yellow house and not an old peeling run-down house. I do this because I want to. The neighbors no longer have to see the old paintjob. Their lives are better. The neighborhood becomes nicer and their houses become more valuable. They are now richer. Apparently they are free riders, because I did something that I wanted to do and they benefited.

Whew! So many bad analogies, so little time!

All you need to do to see where Jeff's attempt comes unstuck is simply make it more accurate, as follows:

It has been philosophically decided it is the legitimate duty of government to protect houses from the wear and tear of nature. As all houses are subject to nature, none can be excluded from this. As Jeff is very keen to protect his house, and those of his friends and family, from nature, he makes voluntary contributions to the government house-painting scheme. Others, however, are not so keen to contribute, and would rather use their money to buy holidays, jetskis, and funky leather shoes. Yet the government must paint their houses as well as Jeff's, as it is their philosophically legitmate duty to battle the effects of nature on houses. And the money only will go so far. So the government must ask Jeff for the additional money to paint the "free-riders" houses - either that, or start watering down the paint for everyone.

Fortunately for everyone, Jeff is the giving type,and is prepared to give as much of his income voluntarily as it takes to paint the "free-riders" houses properly as well as his. For this, the "free-riders" are eternally grateful; but sadly they do not think of him as they sip their Pina Coladas, rev their jetskis and pose in their Blahniks. Further, a number of slightly less principled donators than Jeff are starting to wonder why they bother, when they could be free-riding too...

>PS, I'm aware that Mr. Barnes did not invent this problem, but I call it his problem, because this is a board for Objectivists, and most Objectivists that I'm aware of are smart enough to see through the fallacy

It looks like the only fallacy so far is your initial analogy, though I have no doubt you are smart enough to now start getting it. Besides, you went a little further than that. You claimed 1) that it was my problem 2) that it was false 3) that I was using it to "trick you all" for some unspecified ends.

You now know:
1) That it is in fact a well known and difficult economic problem. 2) That it is not false, because you yourself fully accept it (your only proposal is to just put up with it, which hardly counts as much of a solution)

As for 3), as you now accept the "free-rider" problem is a true one, you will have to admit this is not some dastardly "trick" on my part, but a genuine issue that cannot be dismissed by weak hand-waving arguments like the ones you've proposed so far.

So you're welcome to apologise for falsely imputing bad faith on my part in the debate, and you can be sure I will accept graciously.

- Daniel

Post 52

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 6:10pm

Mr. Barnes' attempted counter analogy is false because it presumes that there is only one level of house-paint that is adequate, and that money must be raised for that level no matter who pays. The fact is, there is a whole spectrum of the states of house repair just as there is a whole spectrum of levels of defense. People will pay for what they want in either case. Mr. Barnes' solution is to shoot anyone who doesn't want to pay what the enlightened such as him decide they owe, and no amount of "hand waving" will make that a moral position to hold.

Post 53

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 6:26pm

Andrew writes:
> I don't contribute to the Red Cross, but they'd be part of the relief effort if I was caught in an earthquake.

Ok, so you're a "free-rider" yourself. You're quite happy to have your very survival in a disaster - and that of your friends and family, no doubt - funded by the productive efforts and generosity of others. As I've pointed out, "free-riding" has its advantages, as the money you've saved can always be spent on, say, a higher education or clothing, and the Red Cross still has to rescue you anyway, same as the people who do contribute. The only thing that puzzles me is why you think this behaviour is so acceptable that you offer it as an example?

BTW, do you think The Red Cross are perfectly happy to have plenty of "free-riders", as there's always more than enough voluntary money to cope with any problem?

Daniel wrote:
>>freedom (n).
>>1. The condition of being free of restraints.
Andrew replied:
>Yes, dictionary.com's entry begins with this most simplistic of definitions.�

That's because this definition is what they call the "primary". And I think you're going to have to walk a bit before you start running here. I'll explain why a bit later.

- Daniel

Post 54

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 6:46pm

>Barnes' attempted counter analogy is false because it presumes that there is only one level of house-paint that is adequate, and that money must be raised for that level no matter who pays. The fact is, there is a whole spectrum of the states of house repair just as there is a whole spectrum of levels of defense. People will pay for what they want in either case.

It's not a counter-analogy, it's your own analogy tightened up.

Once again, stay focussed on the problem. It's got nothing to do with "levels" of defence at all. It's whether you, Jeff, want to pay for the defence of people who don't want to pay. You've already said you do, so why keep going on?

>Mr. Barnes' solution is to shoot anyone who doesn't want to pay what the enlightened such as him decide they owe, and no amount of "hand waving" will make that a moral position to hold.

Is that what they do in the States? Shoot people who don't pay their defence taxes? They don't do that here in New Zealand. Or is this just another handwaving falsehood?

Isn't what generally happens *in real life* is you get your part of the overall cost confiscated - just as your housepainter would do to you if you got him to paint your house, but didn't feel like paying?

- Daniel

Post 55

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 7:18pm

Jeff, Daniel,

I would like to comment on Daniel's comments to Jeff.

Jeff wrote:
>Who gives a rats ass about subsidizing other people?

I take it that means you are fine with it then. Is there a particular limit at which you would *not* want to, or are you happy to subsidise others to the limit that you can afford?

I must agree with Jeff, "Who gives a rats ass about subsidizing other people?" (Nicely said, Jeff.) Neither Jeff, or I, or any other self-sufficient benevolent person cares how much others enjoy unearned benefits as the result of our enjoying our own productive lives. In the first place, no other individual's gain or pleasure diminishes ours, so long as everyone involved as acting by their own free choice. And this is where Daniel is making a great mistake.

When Daniel asks, "Is there a particular limit at which you would *not* want to, or are you happy to subsidise others to the limit that you can afford?" he is assuming free riders entail some cost to those who make the "free" benefits they enjoy available. Unless Daniel means by, "free riders," those who receive direct benefits from the government in the form of entitlements (welfare, healthcare, etc.), the, "free riders," cost us nothing.

>Jealousy is not a virtue.

What has jealousy to do with the topic at hand?

It is obvious, apparently to everyone except Daniel, that Jeff means there is no motive whatsoever for begrudging those who seem to be, "getting something for nothing," (so long as it costs no one else anything) except some kind of perverted envy that says, "why should they enjoy those benefits when I have to work for mine?" No Objectivist would ever think like that, because, they personally enjoy earning what they enjoy, and know that no matter how it seems, no one gets anything for nothing.

>I want to support the defense of myself, my family, my friends and greatest country in history. The "free riders" are irrelevant.

To be consistent, Jeff, you will have to amend the above sentence as follows:

"I want to pay to support the defense of myself, my family, my friends, any number of freeloaders, and the greatest country in history"

No, Jeff is right. the "free riders" are irrelevant. Suppose there are 10 million free riders in the country, and the total cost of defence is X. Tomorrow, all the free riders die. The total cost of defence will not be reduced one penny, it will still be precisely X. The free riders contribute to nothing, and cost nothing.

Regi

Post 56

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 8:50pm

Daniel, Jeff, Andrew, Snow Dog, Robert,

You, Daniel, said about the so-called "free rider" problem, "... it is in fact a well known and difficult economic problem.

It is in fact bunk! It is just another of the myriad false problems invented by statists to defend political power. This, and all other such, "problems " were identified eloquently by H.L. Mencken, "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed--and hence clamorous to be led to safety--by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

Nothing is much more "imaginary" than the so called "free rider" problem. Nothing is an "economic problem," that entails no cost, and, so long as coercive force is excluded, it is not possible for "free riders," or anyone else to cost anyone anything they are not willing to pay. The unstated concept smuggled into all "free rider" arguments is that, somehow, those who enjoy free benefits "force" others to pay for those benefits. If that is what is meant by, "free riders," they are easy to identify; they are everyone who is paid by or receives benefits from the government.

Andrew Bissell has made these points in a very gentlemanly way when responding to Robert Bisno, and Jeff Landauer even gave you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you were too intelligent to be taken in by the absurd "free rider" problem yourself, and guessing you must be using it as a means of "fooling" others.

Since you did not respond to Andrew's arguments, I assume you either did not notice them (or did not understand them). It is obvious to me that Jeff is wrong about your intention, and that you really do believe in the "free rider" problem. You joked, "Like I sit around all day inventing entirely imaginary economic problems," but, while you did not invent it, you certainly embrace it and use it, not, as Jeff supposes, to deceive us, but to excuses your true motive.

You are terrified that individuals free to choose what they will and will not support may not choose to support the programs and policies that will provide the kind of society and world you desire. Truth is, they very well may not. Assuming it is a society in which individual freedom prevails you desire, your solution is, if individuals will not freely choose to support what is necessary for such a society, they must be compelled to support it, by force and against their will. But if individuals, who are free to choose what they will and will not support, do not choose to support a free society (and its defence) by their own volition, I assure you, they will not support it under compulsion.

Your entire argument can be reduced to this, "the way to protect individual liberty is to restrict and limit individual liberty." This is the wrong-headed principle behind all ever more oppressive laws, such as the Patriot Act, for example.

Regi

(Edited by Reginald Firehammer on 5/03, 8:52pm)

Post 57

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 10:33pm

As he is so often able to do, Regi has once again helped to get this discussion back off of concretes and onto the essential principles of the free-rider "problem" (and, in the process, shown how it's not really a problem in the first place). However, I cannot let this criticism go unchallenged:

Ok, so you're a "free-rider" yourself. You're quite happy to have your very survival in a disaster - and that of your friends and family, no doubt - funded by the productive efforts and generosity of others. As I've pointed out, "free-riding" has its advantages, as the money you've saved can always be spent on, say, a higher education or clothing, and the Red Cross still has to rescue you anyway, same as the people who do contribute. The only thing that puzzles me is why you think this behaviour is so acceptable that you offer it as an example?

BTW, do you think The Red Cross are perfectly happy to have plenty of "free-riders", as there's always more than enough voluntary money to cope with any problem?

First, the point I was making was not "it's good to be a free-rider," but rather, "despite the alleged free-rider problem, many of the organizations that should suffer the worst from it are nonetheless quite well-funded and able to function."
Second, The Red Cross is a private organization and doesn't "have to rescue me" at all. Unless, of course, lending relief to ~all~ disaster victims is a part of their mission statement and the terms on which they solicit funds. In that case, all donations made to The Red Cross are made in the full understanding that there will be free-riders, so I fail to see exactly how am I screwing anyone.
Third, by virtue of the natural and completely just inequality of wealth between individuals, some will always be able to contribute more to these kinds of organizations than others. In a laissez-faire capitalist society, poor individuals with no money to give the government would nonetheless benefit from the law and order paid for by their wealthier countrymen. This in no way means they have acted unethically in some way. Nor does it mean financing such a government runs counter to the rational self-interests of those wealthier men.
Finally, while I don't recognize any obligation to detail or justify my charitable contributions to you, I'm sure that thanks to the U.S. government's perennial disaster relief bills, I have already contributed quite a fair bit to the relief efforts we're discussing. I also don't live in a flood plain, on a fault line, or in a tornado zone, so I think I do my part to make sure the Red Cross never needs to lend me relief in the first place.

Post 58

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 10:35pm

Regi writes about the "free-rider" problem:
>It is in fact bunk! It is just another of the myriad false problems invented by statists to defend political power.

Regi, what on earth are you talking about? Do you not understand that excluding "free-riders" is not some statist invention but the basis of *all commerce*??

Ask yourself: why do concert goers require tickets, why do ships kick off stowaways, why do taxis have meters, why do stores have store detectives etc etc etc??

To stop "free-riders", godddamit!...;-)

But you guys are saying: throw the venue doors open, invite the stowaways in, tear the meters out of taxis, fire the detectives - it's a free for all, and Snowdog, Regi, Jeff, and Andrew are all paying!!

"Free-riding" is a form of legalised theft; and the only reason that they can get away with it in defence is that it's impossible to exclude people from it (unlike the concert venue for example). You want to keep it legal - I want to make it illegal, like every other form.

Your example is, unfortunately, completely cockeyed. For you say that 10 million "free-riders" disappear (in say a country of 300m), and it makes no difference to defence spending. But of course it doesn't because they're *not paying in the first place*!!!!!

And even then, you're looking down the wrong end of the telescope. Because if 10m "free-riders" don't disappear, but instead start contributing, you can either:
1)Reduce everyone's contributions by 3%
2)Improve your defence spending by 3%

So it turns out that its this idea that "free-riding" has no costs associated that's utterbunk. There they are, right there, staring you in the face.

And why make it easy on yourself, with only 3%? In NZ do you know what the average donation is to Surf Lifesaving by someone who's had their lives saved? Five miserable dollars. Incredible isn't it. So why not assume a much higher level of free riding - say, 30%? Still feeling generous?

And one other little thing you're forgetting; just cos you don't want them to pay for their service for reasons of your own, why should *I* pay 30% extra if I don't want to? Answer: I won't. I'll reduce my contributions to 70%, so you can subsidise your free-riders even more so, seeing you're so keen to.

>You are terrified that individuals free to choose what they will and will not support�may not choose to support the programs and policies that will provide the kind of society and world you desire.

No, I don't like people stealing from me just because it's too difficult to police.

- Daniel

Post 59

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 11:24pm