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.