9 ms·

> acting only in one's own self-interest can lead to results that are provably worse for your own self-interest. To be precise: everyone acting in their own se

by philh 10y ago

> acting only in one's own self-interest can lead to results that are provably worse for your own self-interest. To be precise: everyone acting in their own self interest can be worse for everyone's self-interest, than everyone not doing that. For an individual, acting in your own self-interest is still good for your self-interest, tautologically. Fundamentally, the problem is that people can take resources for themselves, in a way that damages the total resource pool. Each fish you take is one that can't make more fish. Every car on a road slows down all the other cars.

coldtea 10y ago
>To be precise: everyone acting in their own self interest can be worse for everyone's self-interest, than everyone not doing that. For an individual, acting in your own self-interest is still good for your self-interest, tautologically. No, the tautology would be "acting in your own self-interest is still acting for your self-interest". No guarantee that the outcome would be the best for you -- unless you have unlimited information of future possibilities to pick what's best (then it would a tautology again). For a trivial counter example let's imagine that after your and others actions, a benevolent benefactor gives $10 million dollars to the ones who self-sacrificed the most. Nature can be such a factor -- only much less benevolent.
- philh 10y ago
  Okay, fair enough, but nothing like that is happening here. That situation requires a surprise, it needs something to happen that the actors didn't expect. Maybe because they didn't have perfect information, or because they didn't think hard enough about what they knew, or because the dice came up snake eyes, or whatever. The Braess paradox and overfishing are problems even when everyone has perfect information.
tunesmith 10y ago
Yes - there are actions that only make sense collectively, or at least "collectively enough". Which explains why someone may be in favor of tax increases even while taking advantage of deductions, or in favor of campaign finance reform while also taking corporate contributions - "you can't unilaterally disarm". My point was more to make a distinction against the argument that regulation against a self-interested sort by definition means a worse outcome for that person. Sometimes a regulation leads to a better personal outcome than you'd get through Nash.

by philh 10y ago

coldtea 10y ago

>To be precise: everyone acting in their own self interest can be worse for everyone's self-interest, than everyone not doing that. For an individual, acting in your own self-interest is still good for your self-interest, tautologically. No, the tautology would be "acting in your own self-interest is still acting for your self-interest". No guarantee that the outcome would be the best for you -- unless you have unlimited information of future possibilities to pick what's best (then it would a tautology again). For a trivial counter example let's imagine that after your and others actions, a benevolent benefactor gives $10 million dollars to the ones who self-sacrificed the most. Nature can be such a factor -- only much less benevolent.

philh 10y ago
Okay, fair enough, but nothing like that is happening here. That situation requires a surprise, it needs something to happen that the actors didn't expect. Maybe because they didn't have perfect information, or because they didn't think hard enough about what they knew, or because the dice came up snake eyes, or whatever. The Braess paradox and overfishing are problems even when everyone has perfect information.

tunesmith 10y ago

Yes - there are actions that only make sense collectively, or at least "collectively enough". Which explains why someone may be in favor of tax increases even while taking advantage of deductions, or in favor of campaign finance reform while also taking corporate contributions - "you can't unilaterally disarm". My point was more to make a distinction against the argument that regulation against a self-interested sort by definition means a worse outcome for that person. Sometimes a regulation leads to a better personal outcome than you'd get through Nash.