4 ms·

On the flipside, it's unclear to me why the penniless should care what the best outcome is for "the public," as nebulous of a concept that is.

by slondr 4y ago

ETH_start 4y ago
I think people generally care about the public interest because of their shared humanity. People generally identify with their society and want to see it prosper. They should also care that their society remains well structured because it increases the probability that their own situation improves over the course of their life, and that their children/grandkids will be wealthy. They gain nothing from believing in the false promises of demagogues, except the ephemeral contentment of false hope.
- kaibee 4y ago
  > I think people generally care about the public interest because of their shared humanity. People generally identify with their society and want to see it prosper. This is far from universally true, and to the small degree that it is true, it is an aberration from the vast majority of human history. > They should also care that their society remains well structured because it increases the probability that their own situation improves over the course of their life, and that their children/grandkids will be wealthy. Should they? Sure. Will they? History says it is very unlikely. What also comes to mind is the sociological study where they present two people with $100 to split between them. Person A decides the split, person B chooses whether to accept the split or reject the split, in which case the $100 is taken back and neither person gets anything. The problem with your whole philosophy is that it supposes that Person B will accept the split no matter how much it is skewed to Person A, because it is the 'rational' thing to do from an individual's perspective (any money is better than no money). However, what actually happens is that above the 60% - 70% mark, Person B will often reject the split, just to spite Person A. > They gain nothing from believing in the false promises of demagogues, except the ephemeral contentment of false hope. Demagogues work to convince people that they are getting an unfair split and that they should reject the split. It makes their job a lot easier to do if people really are getting an unfair split.
  - ETH_start 4y ago
    >>This is far from universally true, and to the small degree that it is true, it is an aberration from the vast majority of human history. I think you're interpreting my statement to suggest that people generally prioritize the public interest over their personal interest. I'm not. I'm only claiming that people, ceteris paribus, generally would prefer that society at large prosper. But they would not at their own expense. >>What also comes to mind is the sociological study where they present two people with $100 to split between them. This is very true. Thiel famously believes in Rene Girard's theory that jealousy emerges from the mimetic instinct, and that religious admoninations against it are a social innovation to constrain the dark side of mimesis: https://perell.com/essay/peter-thiel/ https://perell.com/essay/peter-thiel/ >>It makes their job a lot easier to do if people really are getting an unfair split. Yes of course, but the presence of inequality does not suggest unfairness as such demagogues usually imply.
- jessaustin 4y ago
  They should also care that their society remains well structured because it increases the probability that their own situation improves over the course of their life, and that their children/grandkids will be wealthy. Are you calling USA "well structured"? Socialist European nations have much more income mobility than USA has. Few are threatened with penury, most employers pay a living wage, and many more people who have a great idea and the will to build it, do so.
  - ETH_start 4y ago
    Whether the US is well structured can be debated, but my point is only that even a well structured society can have poverty that cannot be eradicated in a generation. Consider the US in 1870: per capita GDP was $3,000, so even with a totally noncorrupt and absolutely competent government, and perfect wealth inequality, the entire population would be in poverty by today's standards. Income growth takes time. As to your point: wages in Europe are lower than in the US, and there is much less funding available for startups. Europe is also not appreciably more socialist than the US: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_social_welfare_spending https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_social_... Almost all of the advanced economies became dramatically more socialist over the last 60 years, the US included: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-longrun https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long...

On the flipside, it's unclear to me why the penniless should care what the best outcome is for "the public," as nebulous of a concept that is.

by slondr 4y ago

On the flipside, it's unclear to me why the penniless should care what the best outcome is for "the public," as nebulous of a concept that is.

ETH_start 4y ago

I think people generally care about the public interest because of their shared humanity. People generally identify with their society and want to see it prosper. They should also care that their society remains well structured because it increases the probability that their own situation improves over the course of their life, and that their children/grandkids will be wealthy. They gain nothing from believing in the false promises of demagogues, except the ephemeral contentment of false hope.

kaibee 4y ago
> I think people generally care about the public interest because of their shared humanity. People generally identify with their society and want to see it prosper. This is far from universally true, and to the small degree that it is true, it is an aberration from the vast majority of human history. > They should also care that their society remains well structured because it increases the probability that their own situation improves over the course of their life, and that their children/grandkids will be wealthy. Should they? Sure. Will they? History says it is very unlikely. What also comes to mind is the sociological study where they present two people with $100 to split between them. Person A decides the split, person B chooses whether to accept the split or reject the split, in which case the $100 is taken back and neither person gets anything. The problem with your whole philosophy is that it supposes that Person B will accept the split no matter how much it is skewed to Person A, because it is the 'rational' thing to do from an individual's perspective (any money is better than no money). However, what actually happens is that above the 60% - 70% mark, Person B will often reject the split, just to spite Person A. > They gain nothing from believing in the false promises of demagogues, except the ephemeral contentment of false hope. Demagogues work to convince people that they are getting an unfair split and that they should reject the split. It makes their job a lot easier to do if people really are getting an unfair split.
- ETH_start 4y ago
  >>This is far from universally true, and to the small degree that it is true, it is an aberration from the vast majority of human history. I think you're interpreting my statement to suggest that people generally prioritize the public interest over their personal interest. I'm not. I'm only claiming that people, ceteris paribus, generally would prefer that society at large prosper. But they would not at their own expense. >>What also comes to mind is the sociological study where they present two people with $100 to split between them. This is very true. Thiel famously believes in Rene Girard's theory that jealousy emerges from the mimetic instinct, and that religious admoninations against it are a social innovation to constrain the dark side of mimesis: https://perell.com/essay/peter-thiel/ https://perell.com/essay/peter-thiel/ >>It makes their job a lot easier to do if people really are getting an unfair split. Yes of course, but the presence of inequality does not suggest unfairness as such demagogues usually imply.
jessaustin 4y ago
They should also care that their society remains well structured because it increases the probability that their own situation improves over the course of their life, and that their children/grandkids will be wealthy. Are you calling USA "well structured"? Socialist European nations have much more income mobility than USA has. Few are threatened with penury, most employers pay a living wage, and many more people who have a great idea and the will to build it, do so.
- ETH_start 4y ago
  Whether the US is well structured can be debated, but my point is only that even a well structured society can have poverty that cannot be eradicated in a generation. Consider the US in 1870: per capita GDP was $3,000, so even with a totally noncorrupt and absolutely competent government, and perfect wealth inequality, the entire population would be in poverty by today's standards. Income growth takes time. As to your point: wages in Europe are lower than in the US, and there is much less funding available for startups. Europe is also not appreciably more socialist than the US: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_social_welfare_spending https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_social_... Almost all of the advanced economies became dramatically more socialist over the last 60 years, the US included: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-longrun https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long...