While I really appreciate the insights and perspective from the story
approach Michael presented, it feels far too contrived to me. I'd like
to see if we can capture some feel of the story-style narrative without
pushing the limits too hard.

The problem I have with the story is that anything a little too
far-fetched is hard to accept. People don't have the experience of
living in a town that has no tax-funded public services. Perhaps if the
story were described as a rural road out of town where there's no mayor
or such, then it's just the individuals in the houses in the
neighborhood dealing with the challenge of cooperation without an
existing government structure for support.

At any rate, the big issue is that Robert (alone among everyone in this
regard, I think) feels that (A) we need to be able to talk to people
about "solving the snowdrift dilemma" and the idea that e.g. Patreon
doesn't "solve the snowdrift dilemma" etc.  so have a core thing we get
people to understand as "the snowdrift dilemma" which itself is the core
cooperation dilemma, and so (B) any reference to toll-roads etc.
shouldn't be a factor that people come to associate with "the snowdrift
dilemma" because it brings up different dilemmas.

I still do not agree with Robert's view, but I do think there's an
important question about where the toll-road issue comes in when
explaining things. So, I'm going to start a new thread on the discussion
list about this question.

One last point about Michael's story: I don't like the wordings that say
"The same way it was hard for the townspeople to cooperate to clear the
snowdrift, it's hard for people to cooperate to fund creation of 'public
goods' that benefit us all." That and related wordings really push the
idea that it's just a metaphor. I would rather say "the same dilemma
applies to other public goods…" because that expresses that the
snowdrift dilemma is an example, not just a metaphor.

If we say "the snowdrift dilemma is an example of a public goods
problem" that's just true completely and not a metaphor. When we say
"software funding faces the snowdrift dilemma", it becomes a metaphor.

Anyway, if we *directly* apply crowdmatching to the snowdrift problem,
it's not a matching of volunteer time (although that's possible, it's
not what we're doing). Instead, it's just crowdmatched funding to pay
for the snow-plow.

The accurate version of the story accepting a mayor and government is
either (A) "so we passed a new tax to fund snow-clearing in the future"
(that's it) or (B) "we tried to pass a new tax, but the people were
opposed to new taxes, so came up with the best voluntary alternative: we
set up a crowdmatching pledge where each of us agreed to pay a little
bit times the number of donors to our snow-clearing fund, and thus we
built up an adequate fund and were able to hire a snow-plow on our own
terms, which meant no toll gates and billboards!"

Anyway, will post to discuss list my bigger thought.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Design mailing list

Reply via email to