tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6398699458159756321.post8194223055197990757..comments2024-03-07T22:31:37.969+01:00Comments on Philosophy by the Way: The economic benefits of transgenic maize and the free rider problemHbdWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05358668804898517772noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6398699458159756321.post-27593657378154610162010-12-28T18:43:18.974+01:002010-12-28T18:43:18.974+01:00Hello Simon,
What all this makes clear is that hav...Hello Simon,<br />What all this makes clear is that having gains and benefits from your relations of other people is very basic. Maybe we live on it. Therefore, you must be very careful to claim for compensation in case of gains and benefits. Only in cases of outright damage and when someone is unmistakenly a free rider. If not,it would harden social relations a lot with all the negative effects.<br />HenkHbdWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05358668804898517772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6398699458159756321.post-20002009754149820932010-12-26T23:52:47.296+01:002010-12-26T23:52:47.296+01:00Henk that would be good. I would point out though ...Henk that would be good. I would point out though that being a complex developed society means that you can be thought of as a free rider in many respects as even if you currently pay taxes you are reaping the benefits of past investments.<br /><br />Also what about historical wrongs? People in many developed ex-colonial powers are benefiting from past colonial exploitation of other peoples. Haiti is a good example, not only were they screwed over by the French but the US –in league with corrupt local elites- has destroyed much of the local economy for replacement US imports. <br /><br />What does the average US or French citizen -or Australian or UK for that matter- owe for past wrongs to people whose descendents still exist?Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00540668068672572303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6398699458159756321.post-9044064095632459372010-12-20T01:49:20.204+01:002010-12-20T01:49:20.204+01:00Hello Simon,
Thank you for your reaction. I think ...Hello Simon,<br />Thank you for your reaction. I think that it is an important contribution to thinking about what the implications can be if we want to let "free riders" pay for the benefits they receive, when they haven't asked for them.<br />As for the fact that we have to pay when we cause damage but not when we receive benefits, I have discussed it already a bit in my blogs of Feb. 23, 2009 and later. I understand that you forgot that ;). Moreover, it was a bit in another context. But maybe it is worth another blog or series of blogs.<br />HenkHbdWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05358668804898517772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6398699458159756321.post-91163503660324995422010-12-18T22:37:06.479+01:002010-12-18T22:37:06.479+01:00I also heard of US farmers who don't use it be...I also heard of US farmers who don't use it being sued when it turns up in their fields. Or that they lose their organic status because some gets in their crop. Or when the toxic crop residue ends up in the waterways, or other weeds, or insects get resistant and cause even greater problems to all. So rather than a free rider it can often be at a real cost. <br /><br />I do take your point though, my intuition is that if you cause me harm then you should pay a price but then by the same principle if I get a gain should I then pay a price?<br /><br />The problem is that this can be seen in society in general; a new business opens in town supplying services that increases economic activity to all businesses in town. If we are to pay for benefits then by rights all locals and business should pay a fee. But is that practical because that new business itself could have got benefits from somewhere else. Where would it end? At least as far as cost it is usually a simpler case to see the one to one causal factors.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00540668068672572303noreply@blogger.com