4 ms·

I mean I do use linux and IRC, so that's probably not a great example. I'm more worried about my grandmother who is confused by microsoft telling her she's not

I mean I do use linux and IRC, so that's probably not a great example. I'm more worried about my grandmother who is confused by microsoft telling her she's not secure unless she signs up for more microsoft products. >you've already added tremendous value. Or you've just filled a niche that already exists in the world, and that could have been filled by someone better, but you're more connected or more ruthless. See also "Multiple discovery" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery as compared to the "heroic theory" of invention and discovery. You're not special, sure you might have invented whatever 20 years before someone else, but most great discoveries of big shifts would have been done by someone. I guess my question is, what if the thing you invented was a better more addictive casino? Sure, you're preying on psychological weaknesses and misleading people, but you're still making money. Most business lie somewhere in between "more addictive casino" and "genuinely add value to the world". I'd argue the difference between them is where almost all of the profit comes from for most companies.

thegrimmest 3y ago
Well, your grandmother could go back to posting letters and going to the library if she wanted to. Her confusion is entirely her own, given she's an agent responsible for her decisions, just like you or me. > but you're more connected or more ruthless This stuff still counts though. Those are just as valid differentiators in a competitive ecosystem as any others. In fact I'd argue you can't separate them from "merit". > You're not special, sure you might have invented whatever 20 years before someone else This seems almost a contradiction in terms. The fact that you got somewhere 20 years before anyone else surely entitles you to the fruits of your success. Or rather, it entitles you more than any other person - what is the basis for your moral claim on the success of another? > what if the thing you invented was a better more addictive casino? That still counts. If you agree that we are fundamentally decision-making agents, then it doesn't matter what motivates our decisions. Who are you to decide that a better casino has less merit than a better space ship? What criteria do you use to differentiate "genuine value" from "value"? Why are you so sure these criteria are somehow universal?
- traverseda 3y ago
  That's not an ethical system at all. Your logic allows for desperate people to sign themselves into slavery and have that be a net good for the world. Ethics isn't a solved problem, but capitalism definitely isn't an ethics system.
  - thegrimmest 3y ago
    > That's not an ethical system at all The whole point I'm making is that there is no such thing. People disagree axiomatically. There is no oracle. Ethics isn't just unsolved, it's unsolvable. The closest thing to a universalizable value we have is consent. You say that it's not an ethical system, but you don't say why exactly, and you don't point to an alternative "ethical" system. > Your logic allows for desperate people to sign themselves into slavery Not necessarily, it depends on the kinds of contracts that are legally enforceable. I favour monetary penalties only, protected by bankruptcy. The ethics are complicated, but it boils down to how much "present you" is entitled to impose on "future you". In either case, you've not elaborated why exactly that would be "wrong". > capitalism definitely isn't an ethics system I agree. Capitalism is a description of the emergent properties of a liberal order. It happens when free people are allowed to interact consensually and resolve disputes via due process. Winners win and losers lose. It's you who is asserting that these emergent properties, which are common to all ecosystems, and totally inescapable wherever living organisms interact, are somehow "wrong".
    - traverseda 3y ago
      > Not necessarily, it depends on the kinds of contracts that are legally enforceable. Who are you to decide how capitalism works? Sure, people disagree axiomatically, but instead of basing everything off a best-effort preference-utilitarianism you've decided to base it off of consent, without accounting for how reality, and especially capitalism, are inherently coercive. Why does consent matter if you can coerse someone into giving it?

thegrimmest 3y ago

Well, your grandmother could go back to posting letters and going to the library if she wanted to. Her confusion is entirely her own, given she's an agent responsible for her decisions, just like you or me. > but you're more connected or more ruthless This stuff still counts though. Those are just as valid differentiators in a competitive ecosystem as any others. In fact I'd argue you can't separate them from "merit". > You're not special, sure you might have invented whatever 20 years before someone else This seems almost a contradiction in terms. The fact that you got somewhere 20 years before anyone else surely entitles you to the fruits of your success. Or rather, it entitles you more than any other person - what is the basis for your moral claim on the success of another? > what if the thing you invented was a better more addictive casino? That still counts. If you agree that we are fundamentally decision-making agents, then it doesn't matter what motivates our decisions. Who are you to decide that a better casino has less merit than a better space ship? What criteria do you use to differentiate "genuine value" from "value"? Why are you so sure these criteria are somehow universal?

traverseda 3y ago
That's not an ethical system at all. Your logic allows for desperate people to sign themselves into slavery and have that be a net good for the world. Ethics isn't a solved problem, but capitalism definitely isn't an ethics system.
- thegrimmest 3y ago
  > That's not an ethical system at all The whole point I'm making is that there is no such thing. People disagree axiomatically. There is no oracle. Ethics isn't just unsolved, it's unsolvable. The closest thing to a universalizable value we have is consent. You say that it's not an ethical system, but you don't say why exactly, and you don't point to an alternative "ethical" system. > Your logic allows for desperate people to sign themselves into slavery Not necessarily, it depends on the kinds of contracts that are legally enforceable. I favour monetary penalties only, protected by bankruptcy. The ethics are complicated, but it boils down to how much "present you" is entitled to impose on "future you". In either case, you've not elaborated why exactly that would be "wrong". > capitalism definitely isn't an ethics system I agree. Capitalism is a description of the emergent properties of a liberal order. It happens when free people are allowed to interact consensually and resolve disputes via due process. Winners win and losers lose. It's you who is asserting that these emergent properties, which are common to all ecosystems, and totally inescapable wherever living organisms interact, are somehow "wrong".
  - traverseda 3y ago
    > Not necessarily, it depends on the kinds of contracts that are legally enforceable. Who are you to decide how capitalism works? Sure, people disagree axiomatically, but instead of basing everything off a best-effort preference-utilitarianism you've decided to base it off of consent, without accounting for how reality, and especially capitalism, are inherently coercive. Why does consent matter if you can coerse someone into giving it?