The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Voluntary

(See in situ)

In post: On Equality


Well, the free rider problem is one thing. You say If the services it was providing were truly essential, people would eventually realize this and pay. But why do you think that?

Nearly every discussion I've ever had with an anarchist has come down to different views of human nature. I think that given a choice between paying for services (even services that the person agrees are essential) and not paying for services, if the option of being a free rider is available then a large percentage will take it. And the more that take that free rider option, the more others around them will want to take it, too, because why should they pay extra to subsidize the free riders?

The people across town have no right to get mad at me if I don't want to pay to pave their neighborhood road - hell, even in my own neighborhood. Suppose I have a 4x4 and am not concerned with road quality but my neighbor drives a Lexus and is pissed about the quality. Why is that my problem?

I expect that if the Lexus owners are effectively given a choice of either subsidizing you so you have nice roads to drive on, or getting an SUV themselves so you can all drive on crappy roads, you get crappy roads and lots of SUVs.

Perhaps as the roads deteriorate further, and even the SUV owners are starting to think maybe they should try to get some road repair funding going, your neighbor who used to own a Lexus (and doesn't speak to you any more) buys a surplus tank with steel treads, so any paving you pay for is going to last about a week. But he doesn't need paved roads so why is that his problem?