Why are we not ostracizing free riders on this board?

[Guest Gee]

So we've all heard the argument for how ostracizing solves the problem of the free rider.

 

And we do have the problem of free riders on the board.

 

So why don't we ostracize free riders on the board? We certainly have the ability to do so with down votes, so why don't we?

[Wuzzums]

Question is, why don't you?

[Jot]

An even better question is why would we not ostracize you.

[dsayers]

And we do have the problem of free riders on the board.

How do you know? Also, I think you poison the well with the label "free rider."

[Guest Gee]

How do you know? Also, I think you poison the well with the label "free rider."

 

Consuming resources, receiving value and not reciprocating. Free rider by definition. 

An even better question is why would we not ostracize you.

 

You could if you donated, but you don't.

Question is, why don't you?

 

It just occurred to me but your right, I'm starting now.

Another, more positive way to frame the question, might be: "What can we do to increase donations? We have the power of ostracism. Here's my proposal:..." Just a thought. 

 

That is another way of looking at it.

 

In that case my propose is we ostracize those who do not donate after some arbitrary post count number.

[Cesco]

why don't we ostracize free riders on the board

 

You have your elite status "philosopher king" gold message board do you? Not enough?

[dsayers]

Consuming resources, receiving value and not reciprocating.

My question was: how do you know? This does nothing to tell me how you know that they are not reciprocating. Pick one account without a badge and tell me how you know that this person is not spreading the ideas of rational thought, empathy, peaceful parenting, the non-initiation of the use of force, etc.

[Jot]

Consuming resources, receiving value and not reciprocating. Free rider by definition. 

 

You could if you donated, but you don't.

 

It just occurred to me but your right, I'm starting now.

 

That is another way of looking at it.

 

In that case my propose is we ostracize those who do not donate after some arbitrary post count number.

Not everyone on this forum disposes of enough money to donate to the show, I have absolutely zero income at the moment and in fact I never had any income at all. The little personal money that I have will be crucial for me when I leave the town for uni this year, plus good luck explaining to my parents where my money are going, maybe for you that live on your own I assume and have a job these problems seem irrelevant but not everyone on this forum is in the position to risk getting kicked out of the house for "being in a cult".

 

Moreover, Stefan always said that money is not the only way to contribute to the show, sharing,bringing people in, talking about the show, with outsiders are also ways to contribute to the show, he even said that if you need to pursue therapy rather give your money to that, you can donate to the show later.

[shirgall]

And we do have the problem of free riders on the board.

 

How exactly are free riders a problem on the forums? Other than the expense of keeping up the web site and its traffic, you are in charge of what you read and write here.

[AnarchoNEET]

Because the forums are already enough of an echo chamber with the downvoting and deleting of unwelcome opinions.

[Lars]

It is unwise to immediately judge others positively or negatively based on their donation status. Along with what has already been mentioned--the possibility of donating one's time toward spreading the show--there are likely more than a few who contribute money yet fail to uphold their supposed values.

[Natalia]

Consuming resources, receiving value and not reciprocating.

There are problems with what you say here apart from what others pointed out. One more FDR listener and one new member to this forum are usually a net gain to FDR. On YouTube, as you probably know, views, likes and shares help videos find their way to the front page or suggestions bar of other people. On forums, seeing an active board encourages people to join it, and the board would be less active if "free-riders" are ostracized.

 

If everyone ostracized those who do not donate, that could just result in many of them simply quitting the forum eventually, instead of instantly donating, what could achieve the opposite of your intentions.

[A4E]

Yes, but it should not be right away, so it will take effect after they have asked a certain number of questions, and we need someone to decide what this number will be, so every 4 months we can have our say in what person we feel will handle this decision adequately. But this person can not do this all by himself, so then we need to enroll a kind of secretary who will collect the information on all the users who are not donating, so that the prime ostracize decider can make an informed rule. And then give the order to donators to enforce the decisions.

 

We need to make sure that every donator obeys the new orders to ostracize non donators who have been asking one too many questions, so we need to hire a law abiding group of donators who will see to it that donators are doing what they are supposed to. Reprimanding any donator who are not doing their duty. Repeated violations may be subject to fines.

 

The prime ostracize decider, secretary, and law abiding group of donators need to be compensated for their tireless and strenuous commitment to the greater cause of the forum, so it is only fair that all forum users chip in 1 dollar each per month to pay these hard working officials.

 

Some forum users are not agreeing with the efforts for the greater good that we are in pursuit of, and are not chipping in to pay for our great decision maker and his staff. They are on trial as we speak. some may have legitimate reasons to not be able to pay, but for those who do not, we are taking necessary measures to ensure that they can not log in or even see the contents of the website. This necessity required us to hire an internet specialist, a judge and bandwidth for court procedures, this means that the current tax is now at 2 dollars per month.

 

We have noticed that a portion of users are having trouble making logical and consistent arguments, which is why we can announce that their life will be much easier from now on, as other more experienced and logical forum users are now required to jump into your post to help you, for a minute, whenever you want to post something.

 

And remember, If anyone do not like the way things are being governed around here, you can always vote for the next prime ruler of ostracizement.

[Lars]

Yes, but it should not be right away, so it will take effect after they have asked a certain number of questions, and we need someone to decide what this number will be, so every 4 months we can have our say in what person we feel will handle this decision adequately. But this person can not do this all by himself, so then we need to enroll a kind of secretary who will collect the information on all the users who are not donating, so that the prime ostracize decider can make an informed rule. And then give the order to donators to enforce the decisions.

 

We need to make sure that every donator obeys the new orders to ostracize non donators who have been asking one too many questions, so we need to hire a law abiding group of donators who will see to it that donators are doing what they are supposed to. Reprimanding any donator who are not doing their duty. Repeated violations may be subject to fines.

 

The prime ostracize decider, secretary, and law abiding group of donators need to be compensated for their tireless and strenuous commitment to the greater cause of the forum, so it is only fair that all forum users chip in 1 dollar each per month to pay these hard working officials.

 

Some forum users are not agreeing with the efforts for the greater good that we are in pursuit of, and are not chipping in to pay for our great decision maker and his staff. They are on trial as we speak. some may have legitimate reasons to not be able to pay, but for those who do not, we are taking necessary measures to ensure that they can not log in or even see the contents of the website. This necessity required us to hire an internet specialist, a judge and bandwidth for court procedures, this means that the current tax is now at 2 dollars per month.

 

We have noticed that a portion of users are having trouble making logical and consistent arguments, which is why we can announce that their life will be much easier from now on, as other more experienced and logical forum users are now required to jump into your post to help you, for a minute, whenever you want to post something.

 

And remember, If anyone do not like the way things are being governed around here, you can always vote for the next prime ruler of ostracizement.

Freedomination Radio!

[Pod]

But I'm contributing to the conversation aren't I?

[Guest Gee]

Yes, but it should not be right away, so it will take effect after they have asked a certain number of questions, and we need someone to decide what this number will be, so every 4 months we can have our say in what person we feel will handle this decision adequately. But this person can not do this all by himself, so then we need to enroll a kind of secretary who will collect the information on all the users who are not donating, so that the prime ostracize decider can make an informed rule. And then give the order to donators to enforce the decisions.

 

We need to make sure that every donator obeys the new orders to ostracize non donators who have been asking one too many questions, so we need to hire a law abiding group of donators who will see to it that donators are doing what they are supposed to. Reprimanding any donator who are not doing their duty. Repeated violations may be subject to fines.

 

The prime ostracize decider, secretary, and law abiding group of donators need to be compensated for their tireless and strenuous commitment to the greater cause of the forum, so it is only fair that all forum users chip in 1 dollar each per month to pay these hard working officials.

 

Some forum users are not agreeing with the efforts for the greater good that we are in pursuit of, and are not chipping in to pay for our great decision maker and his staff. They are on trial as we speak. some may have legitimate reasons to not be able to pay, but for those who do not, we are taking necessary measures to ensure that they can not log in or even see the contents of the website. This necessity required us to hire an internet specialist, a judge and bandwidth for court procedures, this means that the current tax is now at 2 dollars per month.

 

We have noticed that a portion of users are having trouble making logical and consistent arguments, which is why we can announce that their life will be much easier from now on, as other more experienced and logical forum users are now required to jump into your post to help you, for a minute, whenever you want to post something.

 

And remember, If anyone do not like the way things are being governed around here, you can always vote for the next prime ruler of ostracizement.

 

My question was: how do you know? This does nothing to tell me how you know that they are not reciprocating. Pick one account without a badge and tell me how you know that this person is not spreading the ideas of rational thought, empathy, peaceful parenting, the non-initiation of the use of force, etc.

 

Who cares, just ask them.

 

 

How exactly are free riders a problem on the forums? Other than the expense of keeping up the web site and its traffic, you are in charge of what you read and write here.

 

Because free riders can not by definition share those values we presumably espouse. 

 

Good point. After all, we have a "free rider problem" in proposing/accepting anarchism/voluntaryism in any case. Stef just talked recently about how tipping is a free market system without that "problem" in any significant sense. It may exist, but not to a problematic degree. I found this back when I was researching the "what about national defense" problem of anarchism: https://mises.org/library/solving-problem-free-riding

 

Because tipping has women ostracizing men who are poor tippers. If there were no negative repercussions OR positive benefits then people would not tip (because people respond to intensives). Either way I posted a (slightly) alternate theory on tipping in the page if your interested.

 

It is unwise to immediately judge others positively or negatively based on their donation status. Along with what has already been mentioned--the possibility of donating one's time toward spreading the show--there are likely more than a few who contribute money yet fail to uphold their supposed values.

 

Are you?

 

There are problems with what you say here apart from what others pointed out. One more FDR listener and one new member to this forum are usually a net gain to FDR. On YouTube, as you probably know, views, likes and shares help videos find their way to the front page or suggestions bar of other people. On forums, seeing an active board encourages people to join it, and the board would be less active if "free-riders" are ostracized.

 

If everyone ostracized those who do not donate, that could just result in many of them simply quitting the forum eventually, instead of instantly donating, what could achieve the opposite of your intentions.

 

You're absolutely right.

 

I didn't state this so there is no reason for you or anyone to consider it but I mean very high post count + non donor.

Because in order to be a non donor I think you either have not the means to donate or the will to do so.

If you don't have the will to do so you've probably missed out on some of the values FDR tries to communicate, they have not been internalized. 

If the values have not been internalized then, in my experience, the quality of the argument is rubbish (check this for yourself, find high post count, non donor threads, they are insane!). 

 

I actually think the community is letting these people down by not ostracizing them. Such people must by definition value the community and the content (because they could be doing anything else other than consuming content) BUT (if I am right) have not yet managed to internalize the core values of the community (UPB, reciprical value exchange) so they are in limbo if you will. Ostratisation would force a choice, assimilate or leave, and I think either would be beneficial for such people (plus less low quality posts!).

 

But I'm contributing to the conversation aren't I?

 

Yup, see above Bro and welcome!

Because the forums are already enough of an echo chamber with the downvoting and deleting of unwelcome opinions.

 

It is not about opinion but about values, lots of differing opinions here.

Not everyone on this forum disposes of enough money to donate to the show, I have absolutely zero income at the moment and in fact I never had any income at all. The little personal money that I have will be crucial for me when I leave the town for uni this year, plus good luck explaining to my parents where my money are going, maybe for you that live on your own I assume and have a job these problems seem irrelevant but not everyone on this forum is in the position to risk getting kicked out of the house for "being in a cult".

 

Moreover, Stefan always said that money is not the only way to contribute to the show, sharing,bringing people in, talking about the show, with outsiders are also ways to contribute to the show, he even said that if you need to pursue therapy rather give your money to that, you can donate to the show later.

 

I don't know what your position is but consider picking up a customer facing summer job, valuable skills to be learned.

 

That said, if your spreading the message far and wide then don't keep that fact to yourself! Tell the board about it, post about it. If you're investing time to spread the word I'll ask the admins to break my donation status and gift it to you in exchange! 

(open invitation to anyone who reads this!)

[AncapFTW]

Because this isn't a paid forum, and if it was, it would be less effective at spreading the ideas which it was founded in order to discuss.  Sure we could turn it into an echo chamber for those that want to pay to have their ideas reinforced, but that does nothing to spread the ideas.

 

Also, If they did that, why would they keep the free products up?

[ObserveandReport]

Common thread= unseen costs; difficulty of measuring non-contribution. Good arguments on both sides. Personally I vehemently disagree with many of the positions Stefan espouses and as a result I would feel wrong or at least apprehensive about donating. I value the sharpening of my arguments that these forums provide, but that is a resource that you the members provide rather than Stefan himself. To be quite frank I'd rather deal with ads. I have heard why Stefan chooses not to use ads, but my preference is for that which costs the least for me to deal with. I am among those who would probably leave if presented with an ultimatum. I don't proselytize Libertarianism, but I do represent my views when given the opportunity. My efforts are primarily focused on completing my intensive workload for graduate school. Do I count as a free-rider?

[shirgall]

By engaging in the forums we are doing very little to spread knowledge of science and philosophy. It is a look inward, not outward, It is also a very tiny speck in the big picture of bandwidth costs to FDR. The people that really bring down the value of FDR are the trolls, nitpickers, and abusers that distract and degrade folks that are here to learn or are here to help. Getting a response is their reward. Just ignore them.

 

Remember that Stefan is willing to engage Youtube comments, but not the forums, most likely because it reaches more people.

[Lars]

Graham, I'm under the impression that you're trying to stir up resentment rather than promote discussion.

[dsayers]

Who cares, just ask them.

Anybody who responds to the question "how do you know?" with "who cares?" is communicating they have no interest in accuracy. The answer to your question is that YOU care. You did NOT ask them. Then when YOU were asked, you responded as if truth is NOT preferable to falsehood, despite demonstrating you accept as much with every objective claim that you make.

 

Instead of showing value received by adorning a badge, why not instead demonstrate consistency? I would much rather a person exhibit curiosity and integrity than a willingness to pay money.

[ValueOfBrevity]

Voluntary association is up to the individual. If you don't want to speak to users who have not donated, then you are free to ignore them.

Know this: Ignoring people for arbitrary reasons only limits your perspective.

[Guest Gee]

Because this isn't a paid forum, and if it was, it would be less effective at spreading the ideas which it was founded in order to discuss.  Sure we could turn it into an echo chamber for those that want to pay to have their ideas reinforced, but that does nothing to spread the ideas.

 

Also, If they did that, why would they keep the free products up?

 

Come on Ancap, you must know the free product meme is a straw man.

The "free" content is put up there for a 50 cent suggested donation. How many times have you heard the donation message in podcasts? One thousand times? Two thousand times?

 

Common thread= unseen costs; difficulty of measuring non-contribution. Good arguments on both sides. Personally I vehemently disagree with many of the positions Stefan espouses and as a result I would feel wrong or at least apprehensive about donating. I value the sharpening of my arguments that these forums provide, but that is a resource that you the members provide rather than Stefan himself. To be quite frank I'd rather deal with ads. I have heard why Stefan chooses not to use ads, but my preference is for that which costs the least for me to deal with. I am among those who would probably leave if presented with an ultimatum. I don't proselytize Libertarianism, but I do represent my views when given the opportunity. My efforts are primarily focused on completing my intensive workload for graduate school. Do I count as a free-rider?

 

You could also sharpen your arguments by joining a debating society, law society, doing logic book work, taking a supplementary course at university on logic be it philosophical, mathematical or compSci-esque, signing up to a MOOC, starting a blog, starting a podcast, but despite disagreeing with alot of content here you are (and welcome btw!).

 

Presumably after sharpening your arguments to some degree, if your only here to sharpen arguments, you'll drift away from the board and not consume the media etc.

 

I think almost everyone starts as a free rider, I did, and I personally went through a process of assimilating the arguments and the values and then, in order to be consistent with the values, I had to donate (or accept that I would be a poser). (UPB btw, the second I got that I had to donate).

 

So yes, your a free rider. But your a free rider in a free ride phase, maybe you'll hop of the train down the line, maybe you'll won't.

 

Whats the grad in btw?

 

By engaging in the forums we are doing very little to spread knowledge of science and philosophy. It is a look inward, not outward, It is also a very tiny speck in the big picture of bandwidth costs to FDR. The people that really bring down the value of FDR are the trolls, nitpickers, and abusers that distract and degrade folks that are here to learn or are here to help. Getting a response is their reward. Just ignore them.

 

Remember that Stefan is willing to engage Youtube comments, but not the forums, most likely because it reaches more people.

 

Yeah true, there is a pretty quick and hard response to abuse and trolls which is amazing to see.

 

Stefan doesn't engage on the forums, but without a doubt forum content absolutely makes it into podcasts. It's a great tool to see whats popping, whats provoking emotional defenses in the more rational etc.

 

Graham, I'm under the impression that you're trying to stir up resentment rather than promote discussion.

 

Lars, if you don't want to say, just say you don't want to say. But if you've had a strong reaction after I've asked that might be really interesting to talk about?

 

What? Are you really saying that everyone who tips only does so because their woman will be dismayed? That isn't what the caller nor Stefan said; it was only one element of the discussion. Women tip; men alone tip. 

 

And what about the other parts of my argument: that we encounter the "free rider problem" in every aspect of anarchism, and yet, it's not actually a problem at all, according to Mises. Did you click the link?

 

Yeah so the axiom of economics is people respond to incentives, so failing to figure out what the incentive might be is an intellectual failure, the axiom can not be discarded.

 

So I propose that tipping is a signal is the value placed upon the services rendered by a traditional stay-at-home wife role.

So women not tipping signal they don't value the role, as do men.

So women ostracizing men who do not tip are ostracizing men who do not signal value of that aspect of the wife role.

Then the effect is that men that tip more, being more likely to win the affections of women are the men more likely to value to services of a star-at-home wife. So the wife is more valued in the marriage and thus the marriage more stable and thus society more stable.

 

Then men do it alone could be explained that this behavior has been internalized.

 

That whites tip more than blacks would go with the difference in white and black marriage rates. (Blacks values the wife role less thus tip less).

 

And that asians are not as good tippers as whites would be explained by asian culture putting more emphasis upon these roles in general. (There is an expectation that these services would be provided and valued thus signaling is not as much required).

 

Anybody who responds to the question "how do you know?" with "who cares?" is communicating they have no interest in accuracy. The answer to your question is that YOU care. You did NOT ask them. Then when YOU were asked, you responded as if truth is NOT preferable to falsehood, despite demonstrating you accept as much with every objective claim that you make.

 

Instead of showing value received by adorning a badge, why not instead demonstrate consistency? I would much rather a person exhibit curiosity and integrity than a willingness to pay money.

 

No bro, it was a who cares to you "How will you know" line. 

 

>Pretty reasonable assumption

>But how do you know?! What if X?! What if Y?! What if Z?! WHAT IF XZY?

>Who cares about your "not all donors are like that" hysteria, just ask them.

 

 

Voluntary association is up to the individual. If you don't want to speak to users who have not donated, then you are free to ignore them.

 

Know this: Ignoring people for arbitrary reasons only limits your perspective.

 

First line yes.

 

Second line yes, but no. 

 

If I ignore muslims then I limit my perspective, but the preservative I limit is that of a group who follow the teachings of a camel piss drinking pedophile. 

[violet]

I don't think it's useful to ostracize people. Maybe they don't have enough spare money to donate. Maybe they are still considering whether they want to help financially. The way I see it, the more open and accepting this place is, the more it will attract users (potential donors) and encourage them to stay.

[shirgall]

Stefan doesn't engage on the forums, but without a doubt forum content absolutely makes it into podcasts. It's a great tool to see whats popping, whats provoking emotional defenses in the more rational etc.

 

 

The only material I see make it from the forums to the show (besides the "What do you want to see?" thread) is people that sharpen their saw here before submitting a question to MMD and the show. I'm certainly in support of that.

[ObserveandReport]

 

Whats the grad in btw?

Law. Yes, I realize there is some irony for an anarchist. Private law all the way(pie in the sky perhaps). I want to do public interest stuff. First/second amendment, eminent domain. Also, I'm intrigued with things like the Innocence Project and border reform (passports as mechanisms allowing human trafficking). Also, it's an exciting time for property rights as people try and make "cyberproperty" a thing and try and make up nonsense laws treating cyberspace as actual property.

 

The only material I see make it from the forums to the show (besides the "What do you want to see?" thread) is people that sharpen their saw here before submitting a question to MMD and the show. I'm certainly in support of that.

One hundred percent.

[Guest Gee]

I don't think it's useful to ostracize people. Maybe they don't have enough spare money to donate. Maybe they are still considering whether they want to help financially. The way I see it, the more open and accepting this place is, the more it will attract users (potential donors) and encourage them to stay.

 

Your absolutely right! 

 

You are really bending over backwards to justify yourself here. And yet, still have failed to proved there is any free rider problem here to begin with. I ask again, did you click the Mises link?

 

Really bending over backwards? Is that your way of saying that I've put forward a compelling argument that you can not find a hole in (the tipping I mean), because I was pretty happy with my unconscious when it popped into my head.

 

O yeah, sorry about that I did scan the link but forgot to say anything. I don't think it applies because it is referring to positive externalizes. Even were I not referring to values it still would not apply I think because donations.

 

I think the positive externality might be something like.... 

 

I find FDR

FDR frees me from the cave! 

I create something of value, say an argument or a proof

The argument or proof benefits a great number of people WITHOUT them interacting with me or FDR

 

The only material I see make it from the forums to the show (besides the "What do you want to see?" thread) is people that sharpen their saw here before submitting a question to MMD and the show. I'm certainly in support of that.

 

 

Law. Yes, I realize there is some irony for an anarchist. Private law all the way(pie in the sky perhaps). I want to do public interest stuff. First/second amendment, eminent domain. Also, I'm intrigued with things like the Innocence Project and border reform (passports as mechanisms allowing human trafficking). Also, it's an exciting time for property rights as people try and make "cyberproperty" a thing and try and make up nonsense laws treating cyberspace as actual property.

 

I didn't know you were an anarchist   But I don't see the irony, after all, everyone has to play the hand they are dealt. That is incredible btw, all the best!

[dsayers]

No bro, it was a who cares to you "How will you know" line. 

 

>Pretty reasonable assumption

>But how do you know?! What if X?! What if Y?! What if Z?! WHAT IF XZY?

>Who cares about your "not all donors are like that" hysteria, just ask them.

And then I said "You did NOT ask them."

[Guest Gee]

No, I mean bending over backwards as in moving the goalposts, and throwing out lots of assertions without evidence or argument. You still haven't shown that there is any free rider problem here. Peace out. I won't be responding again.

 

Well of course I'm not showing there is a free rider problem, what a waste of time it would be, in the financial sense there is no free rider problem.

 

I've talked about values, namely the lack of reciprocal value exchange (which then by definition can be termed a free rider).

 

Peace.

 

And then I said "You did NOT ask them."

 

And I did not ask them because I can make a reasonable assumption and I know how statistics work.

 

Can you not even find a tall Chinese man to offer up?

[shirgall]

I've talked about values, namely the lack of reciprocal value exchange (which then by definition can be termed a free rider).

 

 

If anything, there's some healthy challenge of rational skills and heartfelt (but possibly not explored) values from time to time. If there wasn't I wouldn't even engage.

[dsayers]

And I did not ask them because I can make a reasonable assumption and I know how statistics work.

Then I think the answer to your titular inquiry is that "we" are not so quick to write people off based on one superficial reason.

[Frosty]

The free rider problem is an issue with services which when provisioned everyone benefits from, for example radio is a public service that once broadcast anyone can listen to for free.

 

However this board doesn't fit that description, it's reasonably trivial to make a forum on the internet private such that only members who provide value back in some prior agreed way are allowed to have access, thus it's a choice to keep it public which means the content is provided for free, there's no moral or legal obligation to provide any specific value in return, just as there's no such obligation for consuming the show on youtube.

 

You should also consider that people taking the time to post content on the board are actually contributing value, it's just not financial. If you believe that ostracization is something you should support then morality starts at home, you have the ability to hide/block posts, so there's nothing to stop you from doing so, if you like.

[Bleak Morn]

So we've all heard the argument for how ostracizing solves the problem of the free rider.

 

And we do have the problem of free riders on the board.

 

So why don't we ostracize free riders on the board? We certainly have the ability to do so with down votes, so why don't we?

 

Free rider here...

 

What is "the problem with free riders"?

Consuming resources, receiving value and not reciprocating. Free rider by definition.

 

I'd like to think that my thoughts contribute value to some of you.

 

 

You could if you donated, but you don't.

 

In that case my propose is we ostracize those who do not donate after some arbitrary post count number.

What gives you the authority to decide who may and may not ostracize others?

 

​If you admit that the basis for your ostracism is arbitrary then is your ostracism baseless?

 

​Why not let the owner of the forum decide what conduct is permitted? Surely they can eliminate "free riders" by disallowing unpaid use of the forum.  Why do you believe that the owners need help from bullies when they could easily address the "problem" without the help of bullies?

[Guest Gee]

Then I think the answer to your titular inquiry is that "we" are not so quick to write people off based on one superficial reason.

 

Not acting decisively to exude those who do not share your values has nothing to do with the FDR change in direction towards Christianity, I'm sure.

 

I wonder, are you an atheist?

 

The free rider problem is an issue with services which when provisioned everyone benefits from, for example radio is a public service that once broadcast anyone can listen to for free.

 

However this board doesn't fit that description, it's reasonably trivial to make a forum on the internet private such that only members who provide value back in some prior agreed way are allowed to have access, thus it's a choice to keep it public which means the content is provided for free, there's no moral or legal obligation to provide any specific value in return, just as there's no such obligation for consuming the show on youtube.

 

You should also consider that people taking the time to post content on the board are actually contributing value, it's just not financial. If you believe that ostracization is something you should support then morality starts at home, you have the ability to hide/block posts, so there's nothing to stop you from doing so, if you like.

 

Once broadcast! Oy Vey! And before broadcast? Well?

 

Almost all of this tremendously valuable content exists because Stef, Mike, Stoyen et. al. can use their valuable time and prodigious skills to create the content. Why are they able to do so? Because people donate. 

 

Maybe there is an IQ thing going on here? Economics is the art of the unseen and the unseen here is the growth and quality and quantity of content. Plus, for the guys without $5 dollars to chip in (young-lings excluded), well, IQ goes with earnings.

 

What do you think? Am I up against biology?

 

 

1. Free rider here...

 

2. What is "the problem with free riders"?

 

3. What gives you the authority to decide who may and may not ostracize others?

 

4. ​If you admit that the basis for your ostracism is arbitrary then is your ostracism baseless?

 

5. ​Why not let the owner of the forum decide what conduct is permitted? Surely they can eliminate "free riders" by disallowing unpaid use of the forum.  Why do you believe that the owners need help from bullies when they could easily address the "problem" without the help of bullies?

 

1. Hello Free rider, guy picking up the bill here.

 

2. The problem with free riders is that they do not reciprocate value. There is no contract and there is no compulsion to do so it implies the the value (reciprocal value exchange) has not been internalized.

 

3. Propositions are not orders.

 

4. Basis is predicated upon the assumption that after some period of time spent internalizing content if such content has not been internalized then it probably won't be internalized.

If you read my responses on page one I hypothesize that high post none donators must value the community but do not hold the same values as the community. This implies a inconsistency in the high post none donator, simultaneously valuing the consistent community whilst not valuing such consistency in him or her self.

Therefore I propose the community should ostracise them until they conform, or leave. The result for the high post non donator being their actions will become, finally, consistent with their values (those that do value consistency can donate, those that do not can leave and find a community where there values are held).

 

5. An An-Cap forum with a top down approach, would that not undermine the argument that community ostrasization would solve the problem of the free rider? 

The owner of the forum did encode tools for such action. Donators can up or down vote. After some number of down votes, no one can see your posts. I shall demonstrate the system by downvoting your post for the 'bullies' sophism. 

[dsayers]

Not acting decisively to exude those who do not share your values has nothing to do with the FDR change in direction towards Christianity, I'm sure.

 

I wonder, are you an atheist?

Moving the goalposts? I thought your issue was with free riders. Now you're talking about religiosity. What gives?