10 ms·
> Why isn't that enough? Who is to judge how much is and is not enough? Do you want an international tribunal allocating a "fair and equitable" amount of squar
by ci5er 10y ago
> Why isn't that enough?
Who is to judge how much is and is not enough? Do you want an international tribunal allocating a "fair and equitable" amount of square meterage of various quality levels of real estate to individuals?
- shenanigoat 10y agoYes, please.
- ci5er 10y agoAssuming you aren't joking, why would you trust the members of the tribunal? I have yet to see any evidence that humans have found a way to overcome the principal-agent problem in governing bodies.
- shenanigoat 10y agoElected == accountable...generally speaking. Of course there would be corruption and errors. I would trust it over a hegemonic oligopoly though. Have to google the principal-agent problem though. I'm not familiar with that term.
- ci5er 10y ago> Elected == accountable...generally speaking. How so? It's clear that voters don't know how (in aggregate) to make rational choices. Given the (for a single example) well-known strong-arm get-out-the-vote collusion between Chicago's elected city officials and Chicago's regional street gangs, I'm not sure that I would trust a hegemonic oligopoly any less. The book that this is based on is pretty interesting: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- pyre 10y agoWhile there may be no legal entity making a decision on the question "how much is enough," people are allowed to make value judgements on the actions of others based on how much they personally think is "enough" for said others.
- ci5er 10y agoWho's to stop them? People seem to revel in rushing to judgement.