5 ms·

If improving your own security produces a negative externality then education also produces a negative externality. You're "harming" other people by becoming mo

by mrob 8y ago

If improving your own security produces a negative externality then education also produces a negative externality. You're "harming" other people by becoming more employable than them. Personal hygiene produces a negative externality because you might become more attractive than somebody. Physical fitness produces a negative externality because you might get chased by a bear and not be the slowest. Doing anything that improves your chances in competition counts, and there are very few areas of life with no competition. IMO such a loose definition is meaningless, and the word should be reserved for cases where you are actually doing harm. In the case of improved car security it's the car thieves who are doing harm.

tlb 8y ago
It's better to define "externality" as including all impacts on everyone but yourself, and accept that some amount of negative externality is inevitable. That allows you to differentiate cases like (in the article) Lojack, which produces a positive externality, from the Club which theoretically produces a negative externality.
- mrob 8y ago
  You can already distinguish between positive and zero. If you lump zero in with negative then you're losing information, and you're violating common sense in a way that makes people lose respect for the field in general.
- closeparen 8y ago
  Car thieves are people too. One could argue that increasing a marginalized population’s chances of life-destroying interaction with the criminal justice system is a negative externality, one far outweighed by the inconvenience of private property appropriation. (That may sound crazy, but it is the governing logic in places like SF that choose not to enforce property crime).
NPMaxwell 8y ago
Good point about being more careful with definitions. Personal hygiene products, high heels, and makeup are examples of the tragedy of the commons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
- cptskippy 8y ago
  Are high heels a public resource that women are abusing to the detriment of everyone?
  - simonh 8y ago
    In evolutionary biology aspects of the social sphere such as the sexual ‘Market place’ are considered commons for these purposes. The behaviour of participants can have negative externalities on others and those behaviours might include methods of sexual signaling. So high heels and makeup aren’t the commons, they are means to exploit it.
    - cptskippy 8y ago
      Right but exploiting or having an advantage doesn't directly translate into damaging the commons. A tragedy of the commons is when someone utilizes the commons in such a way that is simultaneously benefiting them and harming the commons. An example might be one individual drilling for oil in a public park. While that individual profits from the oil, he is also destroying the park for others. How does wearing high heels damage the commons?
posterboy 8y ago
There's a clause in German civil code that the use of a right is unlawful if it can only have the purpose to harm somebody (Schikane - chicane). So that's not about the sum, but harm and gain individually, in my reading.
gaius 8y ago
education also produces a negative externality. You're "harming" other people by becoming more employable than them You jest but this is mainstream thinking and has been for a good few years now. Tony Bliar and his policy of 50% of school leavers being given degrees. The proportion of top grades being dished out at every level increasing, a First is the normal grade at many ex-polys now, there were so many A’s at GCSE the government had to introduce a new super grade A*...
- paublyrne 8y ago
  Whatever the merits of your proposition, using a pejorative nickname for someone in your argument instantly diminishes it.
leetcrew 8y ago
you are neglecting the difference between zero and positive sum in your examples. using a club is zero sum, because (as implied by the article) it doesn't reduce the global rate of car theft, so you are merely shifting the burden to other car owners. you are right that most areas of life are competitive, but the examples you provided are probably not zero sum. when you get educated, you don't just increase your leverage to take more out of a fixed size econonic pie; you marginally increase the size of the pie with your skills. increasing your physical fitness means less burden on health services. everyone you interact with has a more pleasant day when you aren't filthy.
- peeters 8y ago
  > it doesn't reduce the global rate of car theft, so you are merely shifting the burden to other car owners. Article's anecdote aside, there'd be no reason to believe it wouldn't also reduce global theft rate. Theft requires opportunity, and if the club means that global opportunity goes down, the global theft rate would follow. e.g. at the very least there might be some occasions where the car with the Club is the only car available to steal at the time.
  - leetcrew 8y ago
    yeah this occurred to me too, but i just decided to assume the article was correct to illustrate my greater point. the punchline of the article is to suggest that the club actually increases the local risk of theft anyway.
simonh 8y ago
If half of cars are fitted with an obvious guaranteed successful anti theft device, given a certain level of car theft the odds of a car not fitted with the device being targeted are doubled. That’s just basic arithmetic. Nobody is blaming the purchasers if the anti theft device, they’re not doing anything wrong. We’re just analysing the consequences. You not liking, or having some kind of moral allergic reaction to the implications, doesn’t change the facts. However it would be helpful in having a rational conversation about this to at least be able to talk about it without politically charged linguistic revisionism.
- gweinberg 8y ago
  Nonsense. If you assume a fixed level of theft, then any anti-theft device must be zero sum. But that's obviously an absurd assumption.
  - simonh 8y ago
    Not really, if they're out to break into cars and there are cars around that look like they can be broken into, it seems reasonable to assume that they are likely to try to do so.

by mrob 8y ago

tlb 8y ago

It's better to define "externality" as including all impacts on everyone but yourself, and accept that some amount of negative externality is inevitable. That allows you to differentiate cases like (in the article) Lojack, which produces a positive externality, from the Club which theoretically produces a negative externality.

mrob 8y ago
You can already distinguish between positive and zero. If you lump zero in with negative then you're losing information, and you're violating common sense in a way that makes people lose respect for the field in general.
closeparen 8y ago
Car thieves are people too. One could argue that increasing a marginalized population’s chances of life-destroying interaction with the criminal justice system is a negative externality, one far outweighed by the inconvenience of private property appropriation. (That may sound crazy, but it is the governing logic in places like SF that choose not to enforce property crime).

NPMaxwell 8y ago

Good point about being more careful with definitions. Personal hygiene products, high heels, and makeup are examples of the tragedy of the commons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

cptskippy 8y ago
Are high heels a public resource that women are abusing to the detriment of everyone?
- simonh 8y ago
  In evolutionary biology aspects of the social sphere such as the sexual ‘Market place’ are considered commons for these purposes. The behaviour of participants can have negative externalities on others and those behaviours might include methods of sexual signaling. So high heels and makeup aren’t the commons, they are means to exploit it.
  - cptskippy 8y ago
    Right but exploiting or having an advantage doesn't directly translate into damaging the commons. A tragedy of the commons is when someone utilizes the commons in such a way that is simultaneously benefiting them and harming the commons. An example might be one individual drilling for oil in a public park. While that individual profits from the oil, he is also destroying the park for others. How does wearing high heels damage the commons?

posterboy 8y ago

There's a clause in German civil code that the use of a right is unlawful if it can only have the purpose to harm somebody (Schikane - chicane). So that's not about the sum, but harm and gain individually, in my reading.

gaius 8y ago

education also produces a negative externality. You're "harming" other people by becoming more employable than them You jest but this is mainstream thinking and has been for a good few years now. Tony Bliar and his policy of 50% of school leavers being given degrees. The proportion of top grades being dished out at every level increasing, a First is the normal grade at many ex-polys now, there were so many A’s at GCSE the government had to introduce a new super grade A*...

paublyrne 8y ago
Whatever the merits of your proposition, using a pejorative nickname for someone in your argument instantly diminishes it.

leetcrew 8y ago

you are neglecting the difference between zero and positive sum in your examples. using a club is zero sum, because (as implied by the article) it doesn't reduce the global rate of car theft, so you are merely shifting the burden to other car owners. you are right that most areas of life are competitive, but the examples you provided are probably not zero sum. when you get educated, you don't just increase your leverage to take more out of a fixed size econonic pie; you marginally increase the size of the pie with your skills. increasing your physical fitness means less burden on health services. everyone you interact with has a more pleasant day when you aren't filthy.

peeters 8y ago
> it doesn't reduce the global rate of car theft, so you are merely shifting the burden to other car owners. Article's anecdote aside, there'd be no reason to believe it wouldn't also reduce global theft rate. Theft requires opportunity, and if the club means that global opportunity goes down, the global theft rate would follow. e.g. at the very least there might be some occasions where the car with the Club is the only car available to steal at the time.
- leetcrew 8y ago
  yeah this occurred to me too, but i just decided to assume the article was correct to illustrate my greater point. the punchline of the article is to suggest that the club actually increases the local risk of theft anyway.

simonh 8y ago

If half of cars are fitted with an obvious guaranteed successful anti theft device, given a certain level of car theft the odds of a car not fitted with the device being targeted are doubled. That’s just basic arithmetic. Nobody is blaming the purchasers if the anti theft device, they’re not doing anything wrong. We’re just analysing the consequences. You not liking, or having some kind of moral allergic reaction to the implications, doesn’t change the facts. However it would be helpful in having a rational conversation about this to at least be able to talk about it without politically charged linguistic revisionism.

gweinberg 8y ago
Nonsense. If you assume a fixed level of theft, then any anti-theft device must be zero sum. But that's obviously an absurd assumption.
- simonh 8y ago
  Not really, if they're out to break into cars and there are cars around that look like they can be broken into, it seems reasonable to assume that they are likely to try to do so.