Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site westcsr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!mcvax!ukc!kcl-cs!westcsr!sean
From: sean@westcsr.UUCP (Sean Hayes)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Comments on Libertarianism
Message-ID: <202@westcsr.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 11-Dec-84 08:20:32 EST
Article-I.D.: westcsr.202
Posted: Tue Dec 11 08:20:32 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Dec-84 00:47:13 EST
References: <>
Reply-To: sean@westcsr.UUCP (UNAC089)
Organization: CS Dept., Westfield College, London
Lines: 23
Summary: 

>David Friedman suggests the following
>scheme in the case of a dam that would benefit all dwellers in a 
>valley:  The potential builder visits each family.  To each, he suggests
>that they sign a pledge to pay $x if everybody else will pay their
>share 
>The pledge might specify a certain level of participation, but for simplicity's
>sake, let's assume that it says EVERYBODY must contribute, and that the
>amounts are roughly fair.
>
>Each landholder now has a choice -- refuse to sign, in which case the
>dam does NOT get built, and he loses the benefits he'd get from the dam,
>or sign, and pay NOTHING if someone else refuses to sign (in which case
>he only the opportunity cost of spending that money during the pledge period)
>or pay what the builder has defined as his likely benefit (and know that
>everyone else will have to pay, too).  
>what happens if people who pledge refuse to pay.
>Note the lack of treasury agents with guns forcing you into a deal that you
>didn't want.
The treasury agents might not come around with guns, but if you were
the only non-payer in a valley of 10,000 libertarians I wouldnt go
out much on dark nights.

		Sean.