The concern that some are getting something without having paid their due seems indubitably true. That is, both that some get something without paying their share, and that some are concerned about it.
But is there anything we can do about it? And perhaps more importantly, is there anything we should do about it?
Sure, there are people who get to share the benefit that accrues to a whole while contributing less than their part. But isn't that essentially the heart - and I mean "heart" - of welfare?
Perhaps the difference is that those with a bigger share of the cake gift some of theirs to others. Free-riding is mooching, the others are not happy about the free-loader taking more than their share.
But rewards often poorly reflect share of the work done as we see in the story of how science advances. One or two people may get the credit, but in reality, a scientific advance or breakthrough is the product of the work of many. Watson and Crick get most of the credit for discovering the structure of the DNA molecule, but many feel that Rosalind Franklin is much overlooked for her part in the discovery. This is perhaps reflected in some of the better known multiple independent discoveries in science, e.g., calculus (Newton and Leibniz); natural selection: (Darwin and Wallace).
So, we tend to roundly condemn those who take the fruits of the labour of others and deprive those others of the benefit. We condemn those that steal cars, computers or other goods. However, while we still see it as stealing, we seem to think less poorly of those who pilfer from large organisations, and/or if the items are trivial items (e.g., pens, paper, paper-clips).
If we think the large organisation suffers, we are less concerned with condemning the free-riders, the many who illegally download of music, videos, books. In this instance, we seem disinclined to be very concerned (how much does it really cost me?), or may even participate if only from time to time (swings and roundabouts).
But we get quite agitated about "social loafing", the way that one or more members in a work-group sits back and lets others do the work and shares the reward.
Yes this is to some extent how we all succeed. Perhaps the more honest among us acknowledge how we have succeeded by the contribution of others. As Newton famously observed: "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
So why do we get so agitated about free-riders? Importantly, are we justified in doing so?
Take the notion of those that choose not to vaccinate their children. People get quite incensed about the problem of the consciously unvaccinated as free-riders even labeling them as "public health parasites".
Some claim that their behavior endangers our own presumably vaccinated children. However, for this to be true, then we must have a concern about vaccination failure. It is true that vaccines do not protect perfectly. Nor are they perfectly safe. But the risks on both sides are small.
"Small?" you might ask when a child's life it as at risk?
True, but remember, there is in fact a risk on both sides - vaccination-failure, and therefore risk of the disease, and therefore risk of an awful outcome; and on the other side, vaccination reaction, and some other awful outcome. Again, to be clear, both "awful outcomes" are unlikely, and no-one wants to see a baby die or be damaged for life, and this is true of both sides.
So, the "free-rider's" behavior creates a risk, and the insistence that everyone vaccination also creates a risk, then the argument for why free-riding in this instance is wrong must fall to something else.
Is it that we are incensed that one gets the benefit without any of the cost? That is, the vaccinators do understand that there is a small risk of a vaccination reaction, and they have taken the gamble and are incensed that others have not. This is reasonable, but so is the growth in the number unvaccinated as herd immunity grows.
This does seem to get to the heart of how at least some feel about free-riders. It is less about the cost that we personally experience, and more about a feeling that it is "unfair". I see this in students who insist that free-riders in their group assignments are "punished" by a lowered grade even though the grade to the rest of the group remains unchanged.
This seems reasonable. We provide an incentive for people to be willing as organ donors, and penalize the unwilling in the event that willing donors get priority. We would not deprive the free-rider from access to donor organs, we would not let a living patient die on the table for want of an available organ because they chose not to register for organ donation.
So, perhaps the real ethical lesson is for the rest of us to find some compassion, to give without expecting something in return - a little like welfare. To favour those that help over those that do not, or in the negative, to return a disservice with disservice, an version of the famous tit-for-tat strategy that encourages cooperative behavior.
It is probably a little sad that hitchhiking disappeared from the world for this was an example of giving without expecting in return. The free-riders created a smile. Today, it still exists, but now perhaps more safely mediated by the internet in concepts such as the couchsurfing which offers free accommodation to travellers around the world.
The rideshare websites that have replaced hitchhiking are celebrated as saving resources. In effect, encouraging "free-riding" (or nominal fee for a ride) may be for the common good!
Business has also recognized that, especially in the age of the internet, many want something for free. Fortunately, there are a few willing to pay for a "premium" version which in effect subsides the "long tail" of free-riders .
Yes, it is frustrating that some people get something for nothing, and perhaps even at a cost that is borne by others. It doesn't seem fair, and perhaps it isn't. But life isn't fair. No promises of fairness and equity were ever offered. And if they were, then we privileged Westerners owe those with the misfortune of being born in the developing world a LOT.
But if our frustration seeks to impose punitive measures against the free-riders, are we not committing a greater wrong than the wrong we are seeking to punish?
Sure, free-riding creates a cost, but when that cost is to the common good, it is probably fairly insignificant. So is the response to the free-rider designed to motivate behavior change or meting out retribution?
Does a person who is unconsciously free-riding deserve to be punished? Or what of those who are slacking off here because they have contributed elsewhere?
We may feel a frustration at those that free-ride, and especially those that who are unapologetic for "cheating" and at worst, do not even acknowledge their indebtedness to others, but to what extent is it right to try and eliminate this wrong.
Perhaps the answer lies in a proportionality to cost. Dole-bludgers, over-eager welfare recipients, the unvaccinated, and other free-loaders may incense us as individuals, but the cost is not enormous (and almost certainly not greater than the gravy train ridden by top executives and politicians at the public's expense).
And in any case, rather than punish their wrong-doing, real good is to over-come our own over-zealous attachment to our perception of their wrong-doing. Let it ride.
