5 ms·
Many terms of art from economics are probably not widely-known here. > In economics, a good is said to be rivalrous or a rival if its consumption by one consum
by xpe 3y ago
Many terms of art from economics are probably not widely-known here.
> In economics, a good is said to be rivalrous or a rival if its consumption by one consumer prevents simultaneous consumption by other consumers, or if consumption by one party reduces the ability of another party to consume it. - Wikipedia: Rivalry (economics)
Also: we should recognize that stating something as rivalrous or not is descriptive (what exists) not normative (what should be).
- fastball 3y agoI think ideas being rivalrous is intrinsic, and therefore descriptive and normative.
- xpe 3y agoI'm either not understanding you or disagreeing. You seem to be saying that something should be because it is? Saying that would be rather silly, as in "Electrons should repel each other because they repel each other." Not to mention that this claim runs amok of the naturalistic fallacy. So what are you driving at?
- fastball 3y agoWell first I meant "not rivalrous", whoops typo. But from there my point was that, in order to ask what "should be", you must ask what can be. I don't think there is a way for ideas to be non-rivalrous, period. So sure, saying ideas are not rivalrous is descriptive, but there isn't really another option.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]