If you’re only worried about one person, it’s not really worth doing.
If I estimated my chances of being executed due to such a law were significant, it might be worth it to pay for even a small increase in the probability of it being repealed.
In your personal example, multiply the amount you donated by the increase in probability in getting the insulin pump. The result is more than the total costs of the insulin pumps, but is it more than it costs for one?
I couldn’t afford to buy a pump privately before the law was changed. So the successful change in the law was for me mostly a change in quality of life rather than in ongoing expenses. It can make sense to pay for a small chance to improve quality of life sufficiently, because humans don’t have a single utility function convertible to dollars, they have many competing ones.
ETA: I agree purchasing small increments in probability of a large payoff is problematic. We could view it instead as a coordination problem: estimate how much donated money was needed in total, use pledges/precommitments from many donators, and have everyone donate if enough pledges are collected. Like a Kickstarter for not-for-profit missions.
If I estimated my chances of being executed due to such a law were significant, it might be worth it to pay for even a small increase in the probability of it being repealed.
You could probably reduce your chances more cost-effectively by fleeing the country or taking acting lessons.
I couldn’t afford to buy a pump privately before the law was changed.
You could gamble.
ETA: …
If you decide not to do it unless everyone pays, someone invariably will fail to pay. If you allow some people not to pay, everyone will want to be one of those people. If you just ask for people to pledge, everyone will just hope everyone else pledges.
If I estimated my chances of being executed due to such a law were significant, it might be worth it to pay for even a small increase in the probability of it being repealed.
I couldn’t afford to buy a pump privately before the law was changed. So the successful change in the law was for me mostly a change in quality of life rather than in ongoing expenses. It can make sense to pay for a small chance to improve quality of life sufficiently, because humans don’t have a single utility function convertible to dollars, they have many competing ones.
ETA: I agree purchasing small increments in probability of a large payoff is problematic. We could view it instead as a coordination problem: estimate how much donated money was needed in total, use pledges/precommitments from many donators, and have everyone donate if enough pledges are collected. Like a Kickstarter for not-for-profit missions.
You could probably reduce your chances more cost-effectively by fleeing the country or taking acting lessons.
You could gamble.
If you decide not to do it unless everyone pays, someone invariably will fail to pay. If you allow some people not to pay, everyone will want to be one of those people. If you just ask for people to pledge, everyone will just hope everyone else pledges.
You seem to be right. I should rethink my position. I will update my reply later.