The reason you’re obliged to purchase a ticket for your train journey is that there’s a guy standing in front of the train who won’t let you past without a ticket.
Which means that, in order to be obliged to not throw away your recyclables or to drive something that isn’t a gas guzzler, we need a guy standing in front of the trash basket or SUV dealership who won’t let you past (e.g. cops on every corner, or outlawing SUVs).
Not so in my case; many of the rural train stations here in the UK are unmanned and the guards on the train don’t check tickets all that often (and when they do check and find me without a ticket, in most cases, I’d just have to buy one then and there, or at worst, pay a modest penalty fare)
By boarding the train without a ticket, even taking into consideration penalty fares and those times when I’d have to buy a ticket from the patrolling guard, I could travel by rail for a quarter of the normal price. Why shouldn’t i?
Isn’t this just the old Conservative versus Liberal debate in another guise?
There’s probably not much of a difference between this and what I’m saying.
There might be a slightly difference in that what you’re doing is breaking a law, or at least a customer/provider agreement.
I like this example though. You and the train people sort of have a tacit agreement. The train people are saying: “we’re only going to do random checks to keep costs down. If we find enough violators, then we’re going to have to increase the number of checks, hence raise our costs, hence raise our ticket prices.”
But of course, that’s not really enough of an incentive for YOU to buy a ticket. You’re not going to raise their numbers enough. BUT, there’s probably some level of fellow participation you get to where this thinking will end up hurting you (and the group). If, say, only 10 people rode the train and they checked every other day, and you never bought a ticket, THAT might be significant enough so that the increase in prices goes into effect to cover your delinquency (<- sp?).
As someone already brought up somewhere else, game theory considerations come into play at some level (prisoner’s dilemma might be the reduction to the 2-person case here, at least if you cook the example enough).
No.
I think this is right; it is a contract between myself and the train company (or at least it should be).
Isn’t then the equivalent in respect of voting and polluting the ‘social contract’ - the tacit agreement that we will all work together in a certain way?
(BTW, in reality I never fail to buy a ticket)
I think it is actually a version of the puzzle of the straw that broke the camel’s back.
I suppose that would be an equivalent, but the “social contract” is a little harder to define than a business contract.
In reality, I don’t vote. I don’t want an SUV either, though.
Yes, you can really make a difference. Not in the world maybe, but in your own life, which is why you are here. Change comes from within yourself and flows out to others. Work on it.
Love
You’re right: this isn’t necessarily the thread in which to discuss this, but I have to disagree with your points. I do see voting as both an obligation and a privledge. It’s an obligation because our governmental process depends on the voters expressing their preferences. It’s a civic duty because we benefit from the process, and thus should participate in it. No, you won’t be arrested if you don’t vote, but you’re not doing your duty as a citizen.
Secondly, it’s my opinion that the idea that one’s vote isn’t important leads to the pathetic voter turnout that we see during election time. Too many people have that point of view. I think it’s a national embarassment that so many people are poorly informed and apathetic about the process.
If you want to discuss this further, perhaps we should start a new thread.
La la. Look at me. I’m loving and caring, and a loving and caring force surrounds me and infects others.
I think you meant to post this in the “Daily Affirmations of Crap” section.
Seriously, is this a joke? What does this possibly contribute to the debate?
Maybe closer to election time. And, beginning soon, no computer for me till monday.
Probably doesn’t contribute much, since you’re not really looking for debate of your idea as much as validation of a certain idea. You’re right that on a global level one person’s decisions don’t count either way. It’s like taking a piece of sand away from a beach. It would take a lot of erosion to affect that beach. Someone has to care about erosion though.
It’s a collective, combined effort. Knowing that if I stop doing something that is good for the collective whole, that it won’t affect it, doesn’t absolve me from my part. I don’t think it is some sort of “moral” compulsive. It’s more a practical survival tool. Herd mentality or something. I can’t see any reason why you(collective) should do your part and I shouldn’t. I even expect you to do your part, so it’s reasonable for me to do mine. The real question isn’t what would motivate a person to do their part when it probably won’t matter. It’s what would motivate a person to not do their part. I’m with “La la”, oops I mean lekatt. The power to “infect” is bigger than you think. If I’m right, I have a great fulfilling life. If I’m wrong, even delusional, I have a great fulfilling life too. 
I couldn’t find the “Daily Affirmations of Crap” section? It just kept bringing me back here. Hmm…Must be hard to differentiate between good crap and bad crap sometimes. Love 
the smallest of things can make a difference…even if it’s just making someone happy or giving someone a gift…sharing an opinion with someone who is in need of help. Anyone can do it as long as in their hearts they want to.