3 ms·

You argument assumes that everyone doing what is best for themselves _individually_ is best for everyone _collectively_, which is a tragedy of the commons type

You argument assumes that everyone doing what is best for themselves _individually_ is best for everyone _collectively_, which is a tragedy of the commons type scenario. It could be argued that the very idea government – which in some way is in charge of prioritizing and allocating resources on a macro scale – is founded on the antithesis of this assumption: that in the long run what's best for everyone isn't always aligned with the short term, and they're tasked with the balancing act. Different governments tend toward different extremes, of course, but every government is on the spectrum. If individuals doing what was best for themselves at the present moment was intrinsically tied to longterm collective stability and wellbeing, then we wouldn't need government at all! This is all an abstract way of saying that: yes, all of those customers and employees at a Walmart in small town may be doing what's best for themselves individually by working and shopping there at the time, but once Walmart puts all those mom-and-pop shops out of business, the only place for people to work now is Walmart, the only place for people to shop now is Walmart, those who set up shops in the town (who are statistically more likely to have kids and homes in the area) now have nothing tying them to the town (and indeed, may be incentivized to move out to somewhere else to set up shop!), home vacancies go up, community events die out, and suddenly your town is a glorified Walmart parking lot off the side of a highway, and not much else. So yes, you yourself may have gotten your eggs for 20% cheaper for a time, but was it worth the longterm detriments to your home? Hyperbolic, yes, but I've personally seen this happen to a small Texas town I drive through year after year (though, as with any rural town, there's a lot of other factors at play): eventually the protests stopped and Walmart set up shop next to the local grocery store. The grocery store went out of business, even though everyone knew the owners. The grocery store lot sat and still sits vacant. Eventually the grocers moved away with their family. The sports team shuttered in the next 3 years. Then the local school merged with the new, consolidated county school. Then the Walmart eventually closed to lack of customers. The "downtown" is a shell of what it once was, with most businesses closed and some historic buildings once worth being proud of just 10 years ago now literally crumbling beyond repair. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/walmart-effect.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/walmart-effect.asp

thebradbain 6y ago
As an addendum, it's not like this had to happen, even if Walmart moved in: one possibly politically extreme example is the town government could have mandated Walmart could only sell certain things, or put a price floor on certain items, so as to incentivize people to go to the grocery store for some things and Walmart for others (particularly things the grocery store didn't carry). This could have been a better situation for everybody long term – the grocery store might still be in business, the Walmart could still be there, and the citizens of the town could still be saving money; nobody would be making as much profit or saving as much in purchases as they _could be_, but everyone, not just one entity, still comes out ahead. Of course, in our current winner-take-all society, such an approach would be a nonstarter (and probably even illegal). Prioritize sustainable growth over short term growth.
Mirioron 6y ago
>If individuals doing what was best for themselves at the present moment was intrinsically tied to longterm collective stability and wellbeing, then we wouldn't need government at all! I don't think that this helps your argument as much as you might think. Governments didn't spring up as some kind of a mutual agreement in society to benefit everyone. Governance in most places arose after someone conquered and subjugated them. Then through a very long cycle of violence and subjugation we arrived at more modern forms of governance, where governments pretend that it's for the good of the people. Yet at the same time those governments will not give people a choice - they will use force to make you comply. That is to say, we need governments to protect us from other governments. Nobles/royalty didn't rule because they all wanted to improve the lives of people. They ruled because they were nobility/royalty.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- thebradbain 6y ago
  I think our arguments actually agree with each other: back then (and I concede now, to some degree), it was in the interest of a few to subjugate the many (as in, nobility carving out a political ruling class for their own advantage): if you could be rich and powerful, with little to no consequences, why wouldn't you. That's certainly in your individual interest. Collectively, though? It could be argued that, because the powers that be willingly prioritized their individual interest over their subjects ' collective wellbeing (be it intentionally "Let them eat cake"-style or because they were just dysfunctional rulers who couldn't keep their subjugates from starving, it doesn't matter; either way they dedicated more resources to themselves at the expense of everyone), these rulers were overthrown: the United States Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Cultural Revolution, etc. were all products of the elite few irresponsibly divvying up resources for themselves to the point where their subjects decided en masse it would be better to fight to change the system and possibly die rather than live under present conditions; regardless of how each of those revolutions turned out, what is clear is that if the government (or whatever powers that be) prioritizes its own interests too much over those it supposedly represents, it, too, will be overthrown (or at least, changed by external forces). Modern day governments have an intrinsic interest in making sure that doesn't happen, and a big part of that means making sure society is collectively content enough to not pull the plug. But now I'm just philosophizing.

thebradbain 6y ago

As an addendum, it's not like this had to happen, even if Walmart moved in: one possibly politically extreme example is the town government could have mandated Walmart could only sell certain things, or put a price floor on certain items, so as to incentivize people to go to the grocery store for some things and Walmart for others (particularly things the grocery store didn't carry). This could have been a better situation for everybody long term – the grocery store might still be in business, the Walmart could still be there, and the citizens of the town could still be saving money; nobody would be making as much profit or saving as much in purchases as they _could be_, but everyone, not just one entity, still comes out ahead. Of course, in our current winner-take-all society, such an approach would be a nonstarter (and probably even illegal). Prioritize sustainable growth over short term growth.

Mirioron 6y ago

>If individuals doing what was best for themselves at the present moment was intrinsically tied to longterm collective stability and wellbeing, then we wouldn't need government at all! I don't think that this helps your argument as much as you might think. Governments didn't spring up as some kind of a mutual agreement in society to benefit everyone. Governance in most places arose after someone conquered and subjugated them. Then through a very long cycle of violence and subjugation we arrived at more modern forms of governance, where governments pretend that it's for the good of the people. Yet at the same time those governments will not give people a choice - they will use force to make you comply. That is to say, we need governments to protect us from other governments. Nobles/royalty didn't rule because they all wanted to improve the lives of people. They ruled because they were nobility/royalty.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
thebradbain 6y ago
I think our arguments actually agree with each other: back then (and I concede now, to some degree), it was in the interest of a few to subjugate the many (as in, nobility carving out a political ruling class for their own advantage): if you could be rich and powerful, with little to no consequences, why wouldn't you. That's certainly in your individual interest. Collectively, though? It could be argued that, because the powers that be willingly prioritized their individual interest over their subjects ' collective wellbeing (be it intentionally "Let them eat cake"-style or because they were just dysfunctional rulers who couldn't keep their subjugates from starving, it doesn't matter; either way they dedicated more resources to themselves at the expense of everyone), these rulers were overthrown: the United States Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Cultural Revolution, etc. were all products of the elite few irresponsibly divvying up resources for themselves to the point where their subjects decided en masse it would be better to fight to change the system and possibly die rather than live under present conditions; regardless of how each of those revolutions turned out, what is clear is that if the government (or whatever powers that be) prioritizes its own interests too much over those it supposedly represents, it, too, will be overthrown (or at least, changed by external forces). Modern day governments have an intrinsic interest in making sure that doesn't happen, and a big part of that means making sure society is collectively content enough to not pull the plug. But now I'm just philosophizing.