Dismantling The Free Rider Problem

Abstract: The Free Rider Problem is based in observations; but has no ontological approach for solutions. Stochastic, natural behaviors are much more effective at solving for the issues of concern than the oversimplified approaches for the issues that The Free Rider Problem vaguely describes. Not only does The Free Rider Problem exaggerate the issue by orders of magnitude, it also creates much more concerning problems; that it then uses to justify itself. This is one of the things that it has in common with physical violence; and another is it's forceful approach. The problem that The Free Rider Problem describes is only observed in nature in very small percentages of instances in distributions; and tends to be temporary in individuals . An ontological view of the problem would not be concerning; as the problem would not be seen to have significant unfavorable effects. What is being observed is that The Free Rider Problem is an imaginary problem; and the prospective solutions for it are creating enormous issues in our Socioeconomic systems. Argument from Ontology: More and more, Game Theory is being used to model and make predictions in Economics. This is because it is a very powerful tool; that helps us to understand our behavioral predispositions with respect to Economics. Game Theory was probably conceived in 1944 with Von Neuman's book "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior". It was then mathematically formalized by John Nash and his well known "Prisoner's Dilemma". It was then picked up by the political scientist Robert Axelrod; and many scientific tests were conducted in order to determine if it were applicable to behavior. The results were clear and consistent that such behaviors were indeed observed in all lifeforms tested; regardless of how simple or complex. The behaviors appeared to be optimizations for cooperation. It is very likely that almost 1 billion years of evolution has prepared all forms of life for solving the issue that The Free Rider Problem describes. This suggests that no systemic solution is required; as culture is more than prepared to optimize for it, on it's own. It is expected that a small number of individuals in a distribution become less productive; due to personal issues, as life is fraught with many types of hardships. The natural response in small groups differs from modern responses; because in small groups, the collective has the information required to address such instances. In more complex forms of life, help is often offered to the individual; as the collective knows the individual, and their struggles. This often solves the issue; by solving the initial problem. The Free Rider Problem on the other hand doesn't even address the initial problem; and therefor cannot solve for it. It only, by it's own design, excludes the individual from products or services; no matter what the initial problem is. If this were an individual suffering from depression for instance, the individual is essentially being punished for being ill; as opposed to being offered access to needed treatment, that is likely to actually solve the problem. In small groups of tribal cultures, even with their concerning issues, the approach is entirely more coherent and effective than the approaches for The Free Rider Problem; due to addressing the issues with the required information. This lack of employing distributed intelligence toward solutions is probably not only a major influence in the failures of the approach, but also a pathway to creating much more concerning issues in society; by making the initial problem much worse, and being an obstacle to solutions. For our natural, social behaviors, it's a very small, probably solvable problem to begin with; even otherwise, it's still likely to be sparse in the population anyway. Outcomes: The observed negative effects of exclusion are extremely destructive to our societies. They compound the expected effects of normal stress and fatigue; to the point that many find it difficult to function. This is a strong, consistent correlate to economic conditions around the globe. The mental health of individuals is effected strongly by the health of the economy. All of the studies agree on that. The oversimplified "you don't pay, you don't get the benefits" model is too vague to have favorable outcomes; and favorable outcomes are not what we are observing. Compounding issues with individuals tends to result in individuals that need even more help; in order to regain function. This is what we are seeing with the overburdened social services; as of late. This consistently correlates to the decline of an economy; and eases during recovery, as individuals feel more secure. All of the evidence seems to suggest that we are creating these issues; and trying to solve them, with the approach that we created them with, at an enormous expense to public health, and strong influence in the collapse of our economies. We are quite literally trading our autonomy; to punish an insignificant percentage of the population, for normal stress responses, to the point that we create a substantial public health problem. This is socialized, systemic violence.