4 ms·

And my point is, anything which benefits an individual (as long as it's not illegal) automatically benefits the society, as society itself is made of individual

And my point is, anything which benefits an individual (as long as it's not illegal) automatically benefits the society, as society itself is made of individuals. Is there any case where individual is better off but society is not?

Retric 17y ago
Diminishing returns. The USSR overeducated much of it's population to the point where society would have been better off if they had spent more time working and less time learning. Diminished public good. Copywrite that never expires. Graft. Often public resources are sold to individuals at less than market cost.
papercrane 17y ago
Not everything that benefits an individual benefits society. Reallocation from the general public to an individual can benefit an individual, but be detrimental to society. Also some things may benefit an individual, but only provide marginal benefits for society.
- solutionyogi 17y ago
  "Reallocation from the general public to an individual can benefit an individual, but be detrimental to society" I am not sure if I am following the above example. Could you clarify? "Also some things may benefit an individual, but only provide marginal benefits for society." So you prefer society over individuals. Seems like it's 1922 again and USSR called!
  - papercrane 17y ago
    "Reallocation from the general public to an individual can benefit an individual, but be detrimental to society" Repressive copyright laws the take ideas and culture from the public domain and give them to individuals. "Also some things may benefit an individual, but only provide marginal benefits for society." >So you prefer society over individuals. Seems like it's >1922 again and USSR called! Where did I say that? You said that everything that benefits an individual benefits society. I was pointing out that in some cases that the benefit to society is infinitesimal.
mcantelon 17y ago
Not necessarily. If the government were to, say, buy big screen TVs for its citizens that wouldn't necessarily create a social benefit as it may promote TV watching and negatively impact health. Education, however, it likely to give people perspective and options that will lessen their chance of looking to the criminal sphere for income and becoming a social cost via the prison system.
- solutionyogi 17y ago
  Now you are mixing two things. I am stricly opposed to Government forcing anything on individuals as it doesn't lead to any good. So if Government forces everyone to buy TV (or for that matter anything else), obviously it's no good for society. I was talking about any voluntary, legal action by an individual which benefits himself. Such an action always leads to improvement in society as society is made of individuals.
- stretchwithme 17y ago
  So what's bad for the individual doesn't benefit society either.
infinite8s 17y ago
Yes, just take a look at the recent subprime mortgage crisis, or the massive short Paulson and Company made on those CDOs.

Retric 17y ago

Diminishing returns. The USSR overeducated much of it's population to the point where society would have been better off if they had spent more time working and less time learning. Diminished public good. Copywrite that never expires. Graft. Often public resources are sold to individuals at less than market cost.

papercrane 17y ago

Not everything that benefits an individual benefits society. Reallocation from the general public to an individual can benefit an individual, but be detrimental to society. Also some things may benefit an individual, but only provide marginal benefits for society.

solutionyogi 17y ago
"Reallocation from the general public to an individual can benefit an individual, but be detrimental to society" I am not sure if I am following the above example. Could you clarify? "Also some things may benefit an individual, but only provide marginal benefits for society." So you prefer society over individuals. Seems like it's 1922 again and USSR called!
- papercrane 17y ago
  "Reallocation from the general public to an individual can benefit an individual, but be detrimental to society" Repressive copyright laws the take ideas and culture from the public domain and give them to individuals. "Also some things may benefit an individual, but only provide marginal benefits for society." >So you prefer society over individuals. Seems like it's >1922 again and USSR called! Where did I say that? You said that everything that benefits an individual benefits society. I was pointing out that in some cases that the benefit to society is infinitesimal.

mcantelon 17y ago

Not necessarily. If the government were to, say, buy big screen TVs for its citizens that wouldn't necessarily create a social benefit as it may promote TV watching and negatively impact health. Education, however, it likely to give people perspective and options that will lessen their chance of looking to the criminal sphere for income and becoming a social cost via the prison system.

solutionyogi 17y ago
Now you are mixing two things. I am stricly opposed to Government forcing anything on individuals as it doesn't lead to any good. So if Government forces everyone to buy TV (or for that matter anything else), obviously it's no good for society. I was talking about any voluntary, legal action by an individual which benefits himself. Such an action always leads to improvement in society as society is made of individuals.
stretchwithme 17y ago
So what's bad for the individual doesn't benefit society either.

infinite8s 17y ago

Yes, just take a look at the recent subprime mortgage crisis, or the massive short Paulson and Company made on those CDOs.