4 ms·

> We choose to spend a ton of resources to prevent freeloading, even when the amount we spend to stop them is more than we actually lose to the freeloaders. Is

> We choose to spend a ton of resources to prevent freeloading, even when the amount we spend to stop them is more than we actually lose to the freeloaders. Is it also more than what we would lose to freeloaders if we did nothing against them? If yes, then it's indeed not rational. But if no, then it's just indicative that what we are doing is working.

cortesoft 5y ago
Yeah, that is part of why I said it was interesting… it is hard to figure out how important that behavior is for social stability.
Aeolun 5y ago
I imagine if we stopped doing those things the number of freeloaders would increase. So the net benefit is negative now, but it’s still better than the cost of not having the measures at all. Also, yeah, it shouldn’t be easy to freeload. Make them work for it!
- sgc 5y ago
  Your comment made me chuckle because it started "I imagine" and then reached a "so" as a "therefore". Virtually every time you integrate anti-freeloading measures, everyone pays the price to catch a relatively small minority of people abusing the system. It does not at all follow without study that the suffering these measures cause are better than the alternative of allowing some level of growth in the abuse of the system to make everyone else's lives easier. Every organization should do its own studies and reach conclusions based on what actually happens in its domain and location of operation. Anything else is likely harming people and more drum beating than solid work.
  - AbrahamParangi 5y ago
    The null hypothesis is that parasite load will increase until the organism can no longer bear it. Freeloading will increase to the point of institutional collapse. Both people and systems need immune systems to survive.
    - cortesoft 5y ago
      Wouldn't the null hypothesis be that nothing will happen if you allow free loaders, and the hypothesis be that freeloading will increase?
  - Aeolun 5y ago
    > Anything else is likely harming people and more drum beating than solid work. I don’t necessarily disagree. But I think people are happier while being harmed by the measures than by the freeloaders.

cortesoft 5y ago

Yeah, that is part of why I said it was interesting… it is hard to figure out how important that behavior is for social stability.

Aeolun 5y ago

I imagine if we stopped doing those things the number of freeloaders would increase. So the net benefit is negative now, but it’s still better than the cost of not having the measures at all. Also, yeah, it shouldn’t be easy to freeload. Make them work for it!

sgc 5y ago
Your comment made me chuckle because it started "I imagine" and then reached a "so" as a "therefore". Virtually every time you integrate anti-freeloading measures, everyone pays the price to catch a relatively small minority of people abusing the system. It does not at all follow without study that the suffering these measures cause are better than the alternative of allowing some level of growth in the abuse of the system to make everyone else's lives easier. Every organization should do its own studies and reach conclusions based on what actually happens in its domain and location of operation. Anything else is likely harming people and more drum beating than solid work.
- AbrahamParangi 5y ago
  The null hypothesis is that parasite load will increase until the organism can no longer bear it. Freeloading will increase to the point of institutional collapse. Both people and systems need immune systems to survive.
  - cortesoft 5y ago
    Wouldn't the null hypothesis be that nothing will happen if you allow free loaders, and the hypothesis be that freeloading will increase?
- Aeolun 5y ago
  > Anything else is likely harming people and more drum beating than solid work. I don’t necessarily disagree. But I think people are happier while being harmed by the measures than by the freeloaders.