yes, but that is like the economists' case for not voting. the expected local cost is higher than any expected benefit. 1/

it's ultimately a bad argument. in social affairs we are interested in how actions compose, and local choices about how to be rational may yield undesirable outcomes once composition by similarly situated agents is taken into account. 2/

if a wide variety of actors who are well situated to determine by their degree of participation how an economy will perform recognize that they state that superintends them is bad, they might effectively vote by tacitly coordinating to minimize participation and contribution. /fin