3 ms·

I wrote the parable, at least this version of it. I hope I haven't missed its point entirely. We can't avoid being subject to large-scale collective decisions.

by dash2 5y ago

I wrote the parable, at least this version of it. I hope I haven't missed its point entirely. We can't avoid being subject to large-scale collective decisions. Humans can't live in hunter-gatherer bands any more. The individualist US, just like collectivist Sweden, spends large amounts on public goods via its government. Even in an anarcho-capitalist utopia, large firms and other collective bodies would emerge, and would have to coordinate upon collective decisions.

version_five 5y ago
> I wrote the parable, at least this version of it. I hope I haven't missed its point entirely Haha I obviously didn't catch this. I guess then I missed your point. Between your essay and the parent comments, my takeaway is about the danger of enforcing collective decisions on everyone, because even if everyone says they agree, they can still all be delusional, or at least just too scared to speak out.
mostertoaster 5y ago
As well as things like climate change right? The problem is imagine if all the investment put into green energy was actually put into just making fossil fuels and their use far more efficient. It might’ve had a far better impact on the environment, but it would’ve hurt the pocketbooks of the congressmen who have money invested in these specific solutions. (The other side pushing for more fossil fuels doesn’t actually care they just have their investments there). An individual is still able to make the best decisions for themselves and the less you allow them to do this, the more danger and misuse of resources you’ll find.
- dash2 5y ago
  If you are claiming that individual action would've solved climate change, this seems like a fantasy. Public goods problems are real.
  - mostertoaster 5y ago
    It does a pretty good job of figuring out the correct price of things.
    - dash2 5y ago
      No, that's false when public goods exist. The market can't figure out the correct price of carbon, because when I produce carbon, it harms other people than me. Off-topic, but... this is Econ 101! I feel a bit like a programmer would feel when someone says "hey, our car is programmed using an HTML5 supercomputer". It alarms me that an argument which has been known for 250 years, and formalized for 60 years, still hasn't percolated to the educated general public. Markets can't magically work out the correct prices in the presence of externalities. (To head off a nerdy counter-argument: yes, yes, Coase theorem, blah blah. If you think we can automatically negotiate to internalize all externalities, then fine - that seems wildly wrong to me but it's not a logically invalid argument. But if so, markets per se add nothing. Property rights plus individual contract law get you all you need.

by dash2 5y ago

version_five 5y ago

> I wrote the parable, at least this version of it. I hope I haven't missed its point entirely Haha I obviously didn't catch this. I guess then I missed your point. Between your essay and the parent comments, my takeaway is about the danger of enforcing collective decisions on everyone, because even if everyone says they agree, they can still all be delusional, or at least just too scared to speak out.

mostertoaster 5y ago

As well as things like climate change right? The problem is imagine if all the investment put into green energy was actually put into just making fossil fuels and their use far more efficient. It might’ve had a far better impact on the environment, but it would’ve hurt the pocketbooks of the congressmen who have money invested in these specific solutions. (The other side pushing for more fossil fuels doesn’t actually care they just have their investments there). An individual is still able to make the best decisions for themselves and the less you allow them to do this, the more danger and misuse of resources you’ll find.

dash2 5y ago
If you are claiming that individual action would've solved climate change, this seems like a fantasy. Public goods problems are real.
- mostertoaster 5y ago
  It does a pretty good job of figuring out the correct price of things.
  - dash2 5y ago
    No, that's false when public goods exist. The market can't figure out the correct price of carbon, because when I produce carbon, it harms other people than me. Off-topic, but... this is Econ 101! I feel a bit like a programmer would feel when someone says "hey, our car is programmed using an HTML5 supercomputer". It alarms me that an argument which has been known for 250 years, and formalized for 60 years, still hasn't percolated to the educated general public. Markets can't magically work out the correct prices in the presence of externalities. (To head off a nerdy counter-argument: yes, yes, Coase theorem, blah blah. If you think we can automatically negotiate to internalize all externalities, then fine - that seems wildly wrong to me but it's not a logically invalid argument. But if so, markets per se add nothing. Property rights plus individual contract law get you all you need.