Those who pay have the say

Recently in class and in chapter one of "Environmental Choices" the issue of the environment and money has been raised. What Lawrence S. Rothenberg argued and what can also be noticed through casual observation is that those most interested in protecting the environment and passing legislation to do so are in the majority of cases those that have more money than they know what to do with. A beautiful and thriving enviroment appears to be a luxury that many simply cannot afford to pay or have the time for. If one were to ask a group of lower to middle class individuals to rank by priority the ten things they would most be willing to spend time and money on where would saving the environment rank? Chances are that if it made any of the lists it would be near the bottom. Housing, Food, Clothing, Entertainment, Career Health Care, Recreation and Vacations, Cars, and other like items would likely topple the environment on the lists. Most are unwilling to pay the time and money to protect and enhance the environemnt. Even though they believe it would be nice if it would happen they depend on others to make it happen. In other words there exists a strong incentive to become a free rider and let those who have money and free time in abundance to deal with the problem while those who don't can deal with other "more important" things.

The drawback of this lies in that the free riders will get the solution that those with time and money want and are willing to pay for though it may not be in line with what they would want if they were willing to pay their share. Those who are willing to pay for the environment and its protection and development will determine much of its future. Those who are not can only complain in vain.

Free riders will only get the result that those who they are free riding from desire and acheive. Free riders of any kind essentially lose their right to have any say and acheive their desired out comes because it's those that pay that have the say.