Some time ago an executive of a Broadcasting company argued before a congressional committee that they should make a law rating TV shows for violence content. He said that children are damaged and violence must be curbed. He indicated that his own network shows too much violence and that he would welcome a law himself so that Turner Broadcasting would show less violence. Explain why someone who shows violence on his TV channels is arguing for government regulation of himself.

What will be an ideal response?

The executive knows that the public likes violence and so his ratings will fall if he alone reduces it. If everyone reduces the violence, no one broadcaster will be hurt relative to the others. In other words, he is arguing the case based on positional externalities that are apparent in this case.