Coercion and the free rider problem

[AndrewKemendo]

This, as usual has veered off course.

When considering the free rider problem as it relates to any kind of protection or surplus from your provision, there is an equilibrium point at which it makes sense for you to let them free ride and everyone is better off. That point is one in which his use of it doesn’t infringe on your use, nor cost you any more than you would pay in his absence.

Free riding is not always bad, it is taking advantage of otherwise wasted utility in many cases. The point at which a free rider imposes on your use becomes coercive on their part and can be directly seen from the side of the provider.

So I see no real problem in a libertarian or anarchist community (however you want to define that) with free riders so long as they are within those natural equilibrium points.

[pairunoyd]

Isn’t the free rider lament always the excuse? What if you think $1,000/yr is enough for security but your neighbor thinks it should be $2,000? Are you now the free rider? What if another neighbor thinks $3,000/yr is a better price? Are there now 2 free riders? How do you determine the level of security?

So when do you declare war upon someone’s position or contribution to protection?

[Marko]

@ivanfoofoo

Even if they ignore you when **** goes down, they are taking advantage. Suppose you live in a neighbourhood where they contract several private officers. After that action, that neighbourhood will be much more safe. The probability of a crime in that neighbourhood will drop, lets say, to almost zero. That client took advantage of the situation.

He is not a client.

[pairunoyd]

Well, if he has no protection - kill him!