Me vs. Us

It's not uncommon to here the argument that individuals should make contributions based upon choice.  I've heard this argument used toward conservation, pollution and taxes.  It's a noble thought that the individual is supreme, but as a tautology it is flawed.

For example, if I turn off a light in my house, I produce less pollution and consume less natural resources.  Because electricity is part of my rent I don't have the motivation of spending less money.  So when I do turn that light off, what benefit do I get?  You might say none, but you'd be wrong.  I do get the benefit that the world is a little less polluted.  The value to the planet is less trivial than 2 seconds of my time it took to flip the switch, but my personal benefit is only a fraction of the planet's benefit; a fraction as small as a fifth of a billionth (.0000000002 to give a sense of perspective).  Considering that why would I be motivated to spend those 2 seconds?

The trivial 2 second cost only become valuable if I can enjoy a larger fraction of the benefit.  One way to raise that fraction is to have the same action repeated by others.  If 100 million other people spend 2 seconds, then we're each enjoying one fiftieth (.02) of the benefit of a single 2 second act.  At some point the value enjoyed begins to exceed the cost.

Laws are a form of collective agreement, and are usually important when dealing with issues that distribute the benefit so broadly.  Laws that provide tax breaks for a desirable behavior are consolidating the benefits (through taxation) and then returning it to the contributors.

As another example, I'd be willing to spend an extra $100/month for better bus/train service here in Chicago.  I wouldn't even blink.  I do not however send $100 extra to CTA every month to improve service.  That would be ludicrous.  Unless the rest of the city antes up, there is no way my $100 will make a difference.