The needs of the group cannot be met if we are not free to pursue individual interests. By imposing a Social order, we restrict people so that it may be damaging to the group. Offering other agents the opportunity to refuse is the best behaviour for a free individual. It is also best for an individual to be surrounded by free individuals behaving in this way. Being coerced into working for the group is disadvantageous for the group since each group member is so coerced. The group thrives when individuals act freely. Simply put; Government services are expensive...
For the group to thrive does not require that we constrain individual action because part of that action will be to preserve the group. We are not protected from crime by hindering individuals. They will spend some of their "free" time catching criminals and providing security. Other people are good for you, not bad. They will stop crime. Crime gets more difficult as the population (and freedom) increases.
Since people don't like suffering experienced by third parties, they will usually act to prevent it, if it is not too costly for them. We would want to live in a "fair" Society if possible and it is not too costly. Fairness is chosen. Eventually the crime becomes sufficiently personal for individuals to act against it, unbidden and not coerced. People will look after their own neighbourhoods...
Motivated, inspired by: "Reacting differently to adverse ties promotes cooperation in social networks"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment