In this blog post, I’ll explore the interests of individuals within a community through the lens of “living the right way” and the free-rider problem.

Why is living the right way important?

Throughout our lives, we often hear the phrase, “You must live the right way.” This is not merely a moral recommendation but one of the values that has naturally taken root throughout human history as we have lived in communities. Over a long period of time, humanity has survived and evolved through communal living. Consequently, the ability to live harmoniously within a community has become all the more important. The reason is that when people became members of a community, they could gain far more benefits than they could by living alone.
Ultimately, acting altruistically within a community can be seen not merely as an act for others, but as a strategic choice aimed at securing benefits for oneself. As these altruistic actions were repeated and reinforced, we internalized their value through the normative language of “we must live rightly.”
I, too, believe that the phrase “one must live rightly” is not merely an ethical ideal, but is also very important as a means of pursuing one’s own interests from a long-term perspective. In other words, we pursue a “right life” because maintaining community order and living with a responsible attitude ultimately benefits ourselves. Thus, the “reason why one must live rightly” is not fundamentally different from the “reason why one lives rightly.”
In this context, the issue of “free-riding on group projects”—a common experience for us as college students today—serves as a good example that can be linked to “living rightly.” Group projects are activities that require multiple people to cooperate toward a common goal, but the behavior of “free-riding”—where some members shirk responsibility and seek to share the results without contributing any effort—causes conflict within the group and, furthermore, reduces the efficiency of the entire community.
“Free-riding” is a concept mentioned in Olson’s “Theory of Collective Action” from 1965 and holds significant meaning in political economy. In most cases, humans rely on collective entities for their survival or the realization of their values. For example, citizens depend on the state for the protection of their lives and property, and workers look to labor unions for improved working conditions. However, such collective entities do not always possess the will to optimize the interests of their members. Rather, individuals are tempted to avoid costs and enjoy only the benefits instead of contributing to the group. This phenomenon is precisely what is known as free-riding.
The more a collective functions as a producer of “public goods,” the stronger the interdependence among its members becomes. Since the consumption of a public good by one person does not reduce the consumption of others, the benefits are distributed equally even if some members do not contribute. This is when free-riding behavior—seeking to enjoy benefits without bearing any burden—occurs. Moreover, free-riding can extend beyond the individual level and manifest within a group or a specific faction.
The problem is that if such free-riding spreads widely within a group, the production of public goods itself ultimately becomes difficult, and the damage falls squarely on all members. Therefore, we must establish various institutional, psychological, and social mechanisms to prevent free-riding, and we must also make an effort not to engage in it ourselves.
In this way, the concept of a “good life” as a means to maximize personal benefit is directly linked to the reason why we must avoid free-riding. We often criticize free-riding solely from a normative or ethical perspective, but in reality, it is a behavior that should be avoided even from the standpoint of self-interest.
Let us now examine measures to prevent free-riding. Free-riding within a group occurs primarily in two situations: first, in short-term relationships, and second, in long-term relationships. The approach must differ depending on each case.

Methods for Preventing Free-Riding in Short-Term Relationships

Since short-term relationships involve one-time interactions, immediate regulation is necessary. In cases where collaborative work must be completed within a set timeframe, such as group projects, a system that clearly records and evaluates individual contributions is effective.
For example, one approach is to specify each person’s contribution in the final deliverable or to assign individual scores based on the content they contributed. This aligns with the premise in capitalist society that individual effort leads directly to reward, and it can reduce the temptation to shirk responsibility.
Additionally, methods that impose clear penalties on free-riders through regulation can be considered. However, since this approach is only effective if free-riders can be clearly identified, it must be implemented in conjunction with the contribution-tracking methods mentioned earlier.

Methods for Preventing Free-Riding in Long-Term Relationships

In long-term relationships, trust and reputation are key. When collaboration occurs repeatedly within the same group, past behavior influences the formation of future relationships. In such cases, the moment a free-rider is identified, that individual is excluded from future collaborative efforts or gains a negative reputation.
The first approach is to sever future collaboration with the individual or group that has free-ridden. Similar cases exist in international politics. For example, former U.S. President Donald Trump, championing “America First,” labeled countries that did not sufficiently share the burden of defense costs as “free-riders” and declared diplomatic distancing from them. This can be seen as a diplomatic strategy designed to make other nations shoulder greater responsibility.
The second approach is to publicize the free-riding through the media or other public channels, thereby damaging the individual’s reputation. Since image is a crucial asset in long-term relationships, this approach can serve as an effective deterrent.

What is the best way to prevent free-riding?

All of these measures are designed based on human nature’s “instinct to pursue self-interest.” In other words, they deter free-riding by making it clear that benefits may diminish or losses may increase. However, these measures also have their limitations. If the benefits gained from free-riding outweigh the losses incurred by regulation, or if the regulation proves ineffective, people may still choose to free-ride.

Conclusion: The Intersection of Self-Interest and Ethics

Through the issue of free-riding, we have examined how the “reason for living rightly” is not merely an ethical ideal but is closely intertwined with personal self-interest. Only when the order of the community is maintained can each member enjoy greater long-term benefits, and since free-riding threatens this order, it must be regulated.
A life free of free-riding ultimately benefits the community, and that benefit, in turn, returns to the individual. Therefore, various systems and measures to prevent free-riding must be actively utilized, and through them, we will be able to realize a “right life” in its true sense.