Summary of the main objections to the principle of fairness by Nozick 1 The principle allows some people to organize a cooperative scheme and then obligate others to it despite the benefit received by the others being less 3 The principle suggests one be obligated to a scheme despite having disinterest and reasons for not wanting to be involved in the scheme such as than the cost of participation 2 The principle allows for unequal benefits to require equal costs among individuals preferring to undergo one s own machinations 4 Giving benefits does not illicit payment especially if the giving of the benefits benefits the giver Arneson makes the difference between gift and exchange If there is a gift giving association that requires everyone to give gifts to one another on their birthday those who do not participate can just be crossed off the list of receivers the key is excludability that one can be excluded by the givers if they do would like but if they still choose to give the gift after the receiver has explicitly stated that his receiving of the gift does not obligate him to give gifts then it is just a gift that imposes no obligation Arneson points to three features of a cooperative scheme that make a difference Jointness anyone s consumption doesn t diminish the consumption of others Non Excludability The providers of the good has to provide it to everyone if they provide it to anyone Pure Publicity avoidability If anyone consumes a given amount then everyone has to consume the same amount Relations among the points 3 entails 2 but 2 does not entail 3 and 1 and 2 are quite independent of one another cid 127 Once a public good is given there can not really be any voluntary acceptance or enjoyment of the benefits by the individuals as it is For example one can not opt out of national defense unless they move to another land which would most likely by all means not be worth and be excluded as a reason against this argument It is in virtue that governments provide such goods as national defense the police force and the rule of law that gives them legitimacy Arneson s prerequisites for one being placed under obligation to a scheme is where non excludability prevails the scheme is worth its costs and the division of burdens is fair yet the good supplied is not a pure public good voluntary acceptance of benefits will generally be sufficient to place him under obligation According to Arneson free rider conduct emerges amongst the following conditions 1 A number of persons have established a cooperative scheme giving benefit B which is collective in respect to group G 2 For each member of group G the benefits of B outweigh the cost of his fair share in the costs of supplying B 3 The actual ongoing scheme distributes the cost of supplying B to all beneficiaries in a way that is equal to the benefit they receive People who don t want to receive the benefit do not have to contribute 4 The private benefits B must be supplied in sufficient quantity to induce all beneficiaries to contribute a fair share of the costs 5 Each member of G finds his fair share of the cost of supplying B to be burdensome or involve disutility 6 No member chooses to participate under the expectation that others will do the same 7 A large number of people must contribute towards the supply of B if the benefits each receives overbalance the contribution s each one makes No member will get such great benefits that it would be worth it to supply the cost of all of B or much more of benefit B than anyone else cid 127 When all 7 conditions hold true each person who benefits from the scheme can reason that either others will contribute to the supply of B or not The nervous cooperator desires to contribute his fair share is afraid others will not contribute to the same extent to supplying benefit B and the scheme will The reluctant cooperator desires to contribute provided everyone else will but does not believe everyone else will contribute their fair share and he will be giving free provisions to people who are not contributing and declines to contribute In either case it is better for the individual to be a free rider collapse regardless of his own contribution Does not want to waste resources on lost cause Does not want to be exploited by free riders cid 127 When free rider conduct is possible obligations must arise cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127