• 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 lessthan the cost of participation2. The principle allows for unequal benefits to require equal costs among individuals3. The principle suggests one be obligated to a scheme despite having disinterest and reasons for not wanting to be involved in the scheme such aspreferring to undergo one's own machinations4. 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 offthe 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 explicitlystated 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• 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 notopt 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 thisargument.• 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 divisionof 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 B3. 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 wantto 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 costs5. Each member of G finds his fair share of the cost of supplying B to be burdensome or involve disutility6. 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. Nomember 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.• 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• In either case it is better for the individual to be a free-rider• 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 willcollapse regardless of his own contribution. • Does not want to waste resources on lost cause• The reluctant cooperator desires to contribute provided everyone else will, but does not believe everyone else will contribute their fair share and he will begiving free provisions to people who are not contributing and declines to contribute. • Does not want to be exploited by free-riders• When free-rider conduct is possible, obligations must