It really is a form of a prisoners dilemma, and the wikipedia page for Collective Action Problem spells out the connection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collec

It really is a form of a prisoners dilemma, and the wikipedia page for Collective Action Problem spells out the connection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem#Prisoner's_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem#Pris... It's easy to see how if you take an example. Imagine there is a company selling a widget that really makes your life better, but manufacturing it really pollutes the environment. If everyone buys one of the widgets, in fact, so much pollution will occur that our lives will be MUCH worse off than if we never had the widget at all. So my (and everyone else's) preference is that no one has any widgets and we don't have the pollution. Now here is where it is a prisoner's dilemma; if no one buys a widget, the company goes out of business and there is no pollution, but I also don't end up with a widget. If everyone else doesn't buy a widget, but I do, then the company goes out of business (yay!) and there is no more pollution AND I have a widget anyway (double yay!). I get the best of both worlds - no pollution and this awesome widget. If I don't buy the widget, but everyone else does, then I still get the pollution but I don't even have a widget (the worst of both worlds). If everyone buys a widget, then we have pollution but at least I also have a widget. Just like a classical prisoner's dilemma, I am always better off defecting. If everyone else is buying a widget, I might as well buy one, too, because the pollution is happening no matter what, might as well also get the benefit of a widget. If no one else is buying a widget, then I might as well buy one because I can have the widget AND no pollution (which is better than just having no pollution). Everyone has this same incentive, which is why free markets don't solve pollution - it only is solved by regulation, forcing people to cooperate.