5 ms·

It seems to me that considerably more of today's ills would be solved by more collective action.

by thfuran 4y ago

dymk 4y ago
You first?
- thfuran 4y ago
  Take for instance the problem of patent trolls, which could be much more comprehensively solved by regulatory/legal reform than by one guy with a well-funded legal team.
  - btilly 4y ago
    The last time Congress took on comprehensive regulatory/legal reform of patents, the result was https://cafc.uscourts.gov/home/the-court/about-the-court/court-jurisdiction/ https://cafc.uscourts.gov/home/the-court/about-the-court/cou.... Most of the problems with software patents trace back, in one way or another, to that court. What makes you think the current broken legislative system has a chance at a reform that makes things better in a way that you'd like?
    - thfuran 4y ago
      >What makes you think the current broken legislative system has a chance at a reform that makes things better in a way that you'd like That's a false premise.
      - btilly 4y ago
        Obviously I don't think that premise false, else I wouldn't have said it. You say you want regulatory/legal reform. Do you not think this starts with legislation? Do you not think that this requires action by the current legislative system? Do you think that the current legislative system is not broken? Very importantly, patents are federal law. That means federal legislation. That means Congress. An institution that about 93% of Americans have fairly low confidence in. (See https://news.gallup.com/poll/394283/confidence-institutions-down-average-new-low.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/394283/confidence-institutions-... for a source.)
btilly 4y ago
I strongly recommend that you read https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674537514 https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674537514. It explains the economic reasons why it is hard to get collective action to happen. It also explains why any government organization organized for collective action in time is likely to undergo regulatory capture, meaning that the people you wanted to regulate are in control of the regulations and manipulate them for their own purposes. It also studies the various approaches that have been taken to solve this, and how effective they have or haven't been. You'll learn WHY we don't simply all self-organize to act in our collective best interest.
- majormajor 4y ago
  The description of the book seems to take "acting as a group is necessary" as a given, actually, by my read. Right up front! "Economists have long understood that defense, law, and order were public goods that could not be marketed to individuals, and that taxation was necessary." So if the alternative is more self-motivated individual action, you obviously don't have to go far to find tons of examples of how that results in bad outcomes. Here's someone motivated to say "fuck you" to patent trolls. But the patent trolls themselves are motivated by self interest to be a troll in the first place, so "individual agency" here is at best a wash. Difficult collective action to reform the mechanisms patent trolls take advantage of still seem far more likely to work here than just hoping for more individuals willing to light their money on fire on principle.
  - btilly 4y ago
    If the book merely said that the cause was hopeless, I would not recommend it. We are surrounded by successful examples of collective action. But they also tend to be interestingly suboptimal in lots of ways. The book provides a framework through which you can understand why this happens.
- bravura 4y ago
  Do you mind summarising the key points of the book?
aidenn0 4y ago
We definitely need more collective action, but a lot of evil happens because people in positions of power hesitate to do the right thing out of a sense of fiduciary duty. Collective action could align the incentives better, but leaders willing to risk some of the company's assets to do the right thing should, IMO, also be encouraged.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  Hmm. Fiduciary duty isn't a "sense"; it's a legal obligation on anyone who occupies a position of trust. I can't see how being aware of your legal obligations causes "a lot of evil".
cyber_kinetist 4y ago
The two things aren't opposing concepts. We need individual agency through collective action.

It seems to me that considerably more of today's ills would be solved by more collective action.

dymk 4y ago

You first?

thfuran 4y ago
Take for instance the problem of patent trolls, which could be much more comprehensively solved by regulatory/legal reform than by one guy with a well-funded legal team.
- btilly 4y ago
  The last time Congress took on comprehensive regulatory/legal reform of patents, the result was https://cafc.uscourts.gov/home/the-court/about-the-court/court-jurisdiction/ https://cafc.uscourts.gov/home/the-court/about-the-court/cou.... Most of the problems with software patents trace back, in one way or another, to that court. What makes you think the current broken legislative system has a chance at a reform that makes things better in a way that you'd like?
  - thfuran 4y ago
    >What makes you think the current broken legislative system has a chance at a reform that makes things better in a way that you'd like That's a false premise.
    - btilly 4y ago
      Obviously I don't think that premise false, else I wouldn't have said it. You say you want regulatory/legal reform. Do you not think this starts with legislation? Do you not think that this requires action by the current legislative system? Do you think that the current legislative system is not broken? Very importantly, patents are federal law. That means federal legislation. That means Congress. An institution that about 93% of Americans have fairly low confidence in. (See https://news.gallup.com/poll/394283/confidence-institutions-down-average-new-low.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/394283/confidence-institutions-... for a source.)

btilly 4y ago

I strongly recommend that you read https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674537514 https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674537514. It explains the economic reasons why it is hard to get collective action to happen. It also explains why any government organization organized for collective action in time is likely to undergo regulatory capture, meaning that the people you wanted to regulate are in control of the regulations and manipulate them for their own purposes. It also studies the various approaches that have been taken to solve this, and how effective they have or haven't been. You'll learn WHY we don't simply all self-organize to act in our collective best interest.

majormajor 4y ago
The description of the book seems to take "acting as a group is necessary" as a given, actually, by my read. Right up front! "Economists have long understood that defense, law, and order were public goods that could not be marketed to individuals, and that taxation was necessary." So if the alternative is more self-motivated individual action, you obviously don't have to go far to find tons of examples of how that results in bad outcomes. Here's someone motivated to say "fuck you" to patent trolls. But the patent trolls themselves are motivated by self interest to be a troll in the first place, so "individual agency" here is at best a wash. Difficult collective action to reform the mechanisms patent trolls take advantage of still seem far more likely to work here than just hoping for more individuals willing to light their money on fire on principle.
- btilly 4y ago
  If the book merely said that the cause was hopeless, I would not recommend it. We are surrounded by successful examples of collective action. But they also tend to be interestingly suboptimal in lots of ways. The book provides a framework through which you can understand why this happens.
bravura 4y ago
Do you mind summarising the key points of the book?

aidenn0 4y ago

We definitely need more collective action, but a lot of evil happens because people in positions of power hesitate to do the right thing out of a sense of fiduciary duty. Collective action could align the incentives better, but leaders willing to risk some of the company's assets to do the right thing should, IMO, also be encouraged.

denton-scratch 4y ago
Hmm. Fiduciary duty isn't a "sense"; it's a legal obligation on anyone who occupies a position of trust. I can't see how being aware of your legal obligations causes "a lot of evil".

cyber_kinetist 4y ago

The two things aren't opposing concepts. We need individual agency through collective action.