4 ms·

This is a straw-man description of the ethics of Pareto efficiency. Even as such, if the second person has nothing the first person desires, what obligation do

This is a straw-man description of the ethics of Pareto efficiency. Even as such, if the second person has nothing the first person desires, what obligation does the first have to share their bread? Why can't the second person make bread or an alternative? Are they unable to, and if so, are they strictly a burden on the first person?

whimsicalism 5y ago
Yes, you are coming from a very objectivist/libertarian perspective that I reject. It's not a straw-man description of Pareto efficiency, it's a toy example designed to answer a very explicit question by the GP. What I described was a Pareto efficient distribution, and not the most welfare enhancing one. What if neither person can make bread and the other just happened to inherit it all from their parents? Who is burdening who? And that's before we get into the real-world ethics of whether we can honestly claim that contemporary wealth distributions are really derived from consensual interaction. Why should the descendents of nobility be entitled to wealth deriving from what are effectively violent takings? I don't know - the whole deontological libertarian project in this sense seems like it has gaping holes.
- recursive4 5y ago
  I share the objectivist standpoint that, as long as wealth is accrued through fair transactions, having occurred without coercion (including monopoly influence) and because parties provided equitable value to each other, it (and its distribution to heirs over time) is ethically acceptable.
  - InitialLastName 5y ago
    So then you'll agree that in a society where people without jobs are precluded from survival, labor is (in effect) coercive. Thus, any wealth accrued by arbitraging the labor of others was unethically gained and fair game for redistribution up to the point where joblessness is no longer an existential threat?
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      The fact that you need something to survive doesn't mean that every transaction providing it is coerced. Do you consider it coercion when you shop at the grocery store?
RHSeeger 5y ago
> what obligation does the first have to share their bread None. However, part of the role of government (I would likely say it's entire role) is to make society as a whole better. It does this by imposing rules (obligations) on members of that society (taxes, a force to enforce the concept of private property, etc). In the toy case described above, it is likely to the benefit of society to have both members survive and one member be unhappy; rather than have one member survive, but be happier. Hence, the government enforces an obligation on the first person to share their food.

whimsicalism 5y ago

Yes, you are coming from a very objectivist/libertarian perspective that I reject. It's not a straw-man description of Pareto efficiency, it's a toy example designed to answer a very explicit question by the GP. What I described was a Pareto efficient distribution, and not the most welfare enhancing one. What if neither person can make bread and the other just happened to inherit it all from their parents? Who is burdening who? And that's before we get into the real-world ethics of whether we can honestly claim that contemporary wealth distributions are really derived from consensual interaction. Why should the descendents of nobility be entitled to wealth deriving from what are effectively violent takings? I don't know - the whole deontological libertarian project in this sense seems like it has gaping holes.

recursive4 5y ago
I share the objectivist standpoint that, as long as wealth is accrued through fair transactions, having occurred without coercion (including monopoly influence) and because parties provided equitable value to each other, it (and its distribution to heirs over time) is ethically acceptable.
- InitialLastName 5y ago
  So then you'll agree that in a society where people without jobs are precluded from survival, labor is (in effect) coercive. Thus, any wealth accrued by arbitraging the labor of others was unethically gained and fair game for redistribution up to the point where joblessness is no longer an existential threat?
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    The fact that you need something to survive doesn't mean that every transaction providing it is coerced. Do you consider it coercion when you shop at the grocery store?

RHSeeger 5y ago

> what obligation does the first have to share their bread None. However, part of the role of government (I would likely say it's entire role) is to make society as a whole better. It does this by imposing rules (obligations) on members of that society (taxes, a force to enforce the concept of private property, etc). In the toy case described above, it is likely to the benefit of society to have both members survive and one member be unhappy; rather than have one member survive, but be happier. Hence, the government enforces an obligation on the first person to share their food.