First dibs, and hopefully not the last

So i was clicking around on yahoo after checking my mail and i chanced upon this potentially interesting article. Something about incest and locking his daughter up. Definitely not something that happens everyday. Anyway as i read on, somehow i have no idea why, but i was thinking of opportunity cost, and i thought of a few questions. Here's the article.

An Austrian man who fathered seven children with a daughter he locked in a cellar has pleaded guilty to rape and incest - but denied the murder of a newborn boy.

Retired engineer Josef Fritzl, 73, also pleaded not guilty to enslaving his daughter Elisabeth for most of her life.
She spent 24 years in the cellar complex in Amstetten before the case came to light in April last year. Three of her children had never seen daylight.
Sky News Europe correspondent Greg Milam is outside the court in Sankt Poelten, Austria.
He said: "Austrian law does not have a consecutive sentencing policy, so whatever the greater sentence he is handed by this court will be what he serves.
"If not guilty of the murder, the most likely sentence will be 15 years for the rape charge."
Milam added: "(Fritzl's) lawyer is very much trying to paint a very different picture of Josef Fritzl ... as a man who is not a sex monster, but someone who loved his daughter and tried to protect her."

Sky producer Anja Kroll, who has been inside the courtroom, said jurors where shown items from the cellar so they could appreciate the smell of the place.
Fritzl had arrived in court hiding his face behind a blue plastic folder.
Describing the rapist answering questions from the judge, she said: "I got the impression he was really self-confident. He was speaking slowly... but we were not able to see his face.
"You got the impression he was the nice neighbour... but he is not the nice he seems to be."

What was Josef’s opportunity cost in this particular case?

Because the opportunity cost his daughter incurs is obvious (she had no choice in the matter, thus no alternative was sacrificed), I believe it to be more interesting focusing on Josef’s opportunity cost instead. To make things interesting, let’s say, he idles the rest of his years away and then dies. Sex is an activity itself, and the next alternative that Josef would have would be to sit and idle his time away. It is not a great alternative, but it is an alternative. But let’s say his aim in this case would be the satisfaction of his sexual desires. It is degrading to label a human as a good, but for the sake of discussion let’s ignore that. As his daughter has already been born, to Josef and his sexual needs, he can choose either choice: to have incest with his daughter, or not to. Because of the fact that she is already born, having sex with his daughter does not have an opportunity cost (ignoring other activities they could have together, because the primary purpose is fulfilment of Josef’s sexual needs). This scenario, therefore, is similar to a windmill, after it has been constructed (single use factors of production).


So is his freedom his opportunity cost? Does the state of being free constitute opportunity cost?

Yes, even though the state of being free is not an activity, and it is difficult to measure, it is still the next best alternative to committing incest. However, being free is originally a ‘free good’. One does not have to ‘pay’ any amount in order to obtain it; he/she is entitled to it the moment he/she is born (at least according to the Declaration). Thus, because being free is in itself a “free good”, does it mean that he has not incurred any opportunity cost? No, this is because carrying out his actions automatically remove his right to freedom, he can be jailed by law. Thus, the moment he has committed incest and locked his daughter up, he has removed his right to freedom, and it has no longer become a “free good”.

On hindsight, if his freedom is his opportunity cost, assuming he did not expect to be caught when he carried out his act; is his freedom still his opportunity cost?

Well, I’m stumped at this one. The definition of opportunity cost does not state “before” and “after” events have occurred. It automatically assumes parties are aware of the opportunity costs involved. I believe it suffices to say that because he is unaware of the opportunity cost involved (or he did not expect to be caught and held liable), therefore he did not incur any opportunity cost. I am not fully convinced of my answer either, this one is undecided.

hopefully i got some brain juices flowing and everyone's all revved up and ready to blog. this is karl your awesome econs rep.