3 ms·

I suspect the validity of this theory could be tested by imagining what would happen in a society of 10 people. The size of national governments makes them see

I suspect the validity of this theory could be tested by imagining what would happen in a society of 10 people. The size of national governments makes them seem capable of anything. But unless this theory includes a rule that it only applies in societies beyond a certain size (and I didn't see one), it has to work in a society of 10 too, and that scenario we can imagine fairly easily.

bittercynic 9y ago
If your society of 10 people has one person controlling the majority of the wealth, things might go poorly for that one person.
- montrose 9y ago
  Yes, probably, but the question is whether things would also go badly for the other 9.
alew1 9y ago
An analogy that is used in the YouTube debate linked from the article is that of a scorekeeper and players of a game. The government is the scorekeeper, and operates according to rules we collectively agree on. Those rules can incentivize certain kinds of behavior. The points that the scorekeeper tracks are "money." If I, as the scorekeeper, decide to award 100 points to the person who accomplishes X task, I don't "lose" 100 points, nor do I have to "get them" from anywhere. I don't "have" a fixed number of points to give out. I create them by awarding them, and I destroy them by collecting them or allowing you to trade them for things. Privately, you (the players) may also trade points among each other; in this, you are constrained by traditional "budget" thinking (how many points am I getting, and how many can I afford to spend). For your "society of 10 people," imagine a group of 10 roommates who institute a point system to incentivize good behavior at home. Every month, each roommate has to "pay taxes" of some number of points. When we collectively choose to "pay for public services" with points, what we're doing is setting up rules like "whoever cleans the bathroom gets two points" and "taking out the trash is worth one point". Some people don't want to do chores; perhaps you prefer to create some piece of software for your roommate in exchange for some of his points. If there's ever unemployment--people who can't make enough points, because all the chores are already being done and no one wants to give up their (scarce) points for private services--this indicates that we could have a better "point policy," either by paying for more chores (public services), which the "unemployed" roommates can use to earn their points (all while providing useful services for the entire apartment), or by cutting taxes for those who just barely have enough points now, so that it becomes more reasonable to pay some points to the unemployed for non-essential goods/services.

bittercynic 9y ago

If your society of 10 people has one person controlling the majority of the wealth, things might go poorly for that one person.

montrose 9y ago
Yes, probably, but the question is whether things would also go badly for the other 9.

alew1 9y ago

An analogy that is used in the YouTube debate linked from the article is that of a scorekeeper and players of a game. The government is the scorekeeper, and operates according to rules we collectively agree on. Those rules can incentivize certain kinds of behavior. The points that the scorekeeper tracks are "money." If I, as the scorekeeper, decide to award 100 points to the person who accomplishes X task, I don't "lose" 100 points, nor do I have to "get them" from anywhere. I don't "have" a fixed number of points to give out. I create them by awarding them, and I destroy them by collecting them or allowing you to trade them for things. Privately, you (the players) may also trade points among each other; in this, you are constrained by traditional "budget" thinking (how many points am I getting, and how many can I afford to spend). For your "society of 10 people," imagine a group of 10 roommates who institute a point system to incentivize good behavior at home. Every month, each roommate has to "pay taxes" of some number of points. When we collectively choose to "pay for public services" with points, what we're doing is setting up rules like "whoever cleans the bathroom gets two points" and "taking out the trash is worth one point". Some people don't want to do chores; perhaps you prefer to create some piece of software for your roommate in exchange for some of his points. If there's ever unemployment--people who can't make enough points, because all the chores are already being done and no one wants to give up their (scarce) points for private services--this indicates that we could have a better "point policy," either by paying for more chores (public services), which the "unemployed" roommates can use to earn their points (all while providing useful services for the entire apartment), or by cutting taxes for those who just barely have enough points now, so that it becomes more reasonable to pay some points to the unemployed for non-essential goods/services.