4 ms·

To the second half: If some other party seeks to hurt you, it is in your best interest to prevent them from doing so. Especially if the cost is less than the ha

by kriops 2y ago

To the second half: If some other party seeks to hurt you, it is in your best interest to prevent them from doing so. Especially if the cost is less than the harm they would inflict. Presuming peaceful coexistence, then it is not in anyone's interest to limit anything beyond the basic idea of 'my freedom ends where your begins'.

wakawaka28 2y ago
>Presuming peaceful coexistence, then it is not in anyone's interest to limit anything beyond the basic idea of 'my freedom ends where your begins'. Let me put it another way. Your comment suggests some kind of state of maximum efficiency in which the best producer can be charged with production in a monopolistic fashion, and that would limit the amount of resource usage and toil for everyone. In an ideal world with zero possibility of conflict or other externalities like tsunamis, volcanoes, extreme weather, disease, etc., along with perfect foresight of each monopolist, that makes sense. However, we do have possibilities of disruption that make redundancy beneficial. A monopolistic structure can also grow stagnant. With more competitors you have more chances for good ideas to break through. There is a cost but it is essential to maintain some competition and redundancy across geographic and cultural bounds even if it is not the absolute mathematical minimum resource solution. This redundant effort also helps the labor market by giving people something meaningful to do that might otherwise be unmarketable. My idea of instituting duplicate effort requires support from a lot of people, because it's not free of cost. But I think it's the right way to manage society.
- kriops 2y ago
  > Your comment suggests some kind of state of maximum efficiency in which the best producer can be charged with production in a monopolistic fashion Only in a risk-free/non-probabilistic world. To be clear, 'my freedom ends where your begins' is a way to simplify and summarize an approach to the theory of rights. The point of bringing it up in this context was to point out that there is an equilibrium between opportunity spaces of different actors. In other words, as long as we share the universe, we can't do expect to do literally anything (to other actors or their property in particular) without reprecussions, because any justification for it would be inconsistent.

by kriops 2y ago

wakawaka28 2y ago

>Presuming peaceful coexistence, then it is not in anyone's interest to limit anything beyond the basic idea of 'my freedom ends where your begins'. Let me put it another way. Your comment suggests some kind of state of maximum efficiency in which the best producer can be charged with production in a monopolistic fashion, and that would limit the amount of resource usage and toil for everyone. In an ideal world with zero possibility of conflict or other externalities like tsunamis, volcanoes, extreme weather, disease, etc., along with perfect foresight of each monopolist, that makes sense. However, we do have possibilities of disruption that make redundancy beneficial. A monopolistic structure can also grow stagnant. With more competitors you have more chances for good ideas to break through. There is a cost but it is essential to maintain some competition and redundancy across geographic and cultural bounds even if it is not the absolute mathematical minimum resource solution. This redundant effort also helps the labor market by giving people something meaningful to do that might otherwise be unmarketable. My idea of instituting duplicate effort requires support from a lot of people, because it's not free of cost. But I think it's the right way to manage society.

kriops 2y ago
> Your comment suggests some kind of state of maximum efficiency in which the best producer can be charged with production in a monopolistic fashion Only in a risk-free/non-probabilistic world. To be clear, 'my freedom ends where your begins' is a way to simplify and summarize an approach to the theory of rights. The point of bringing it up in this context was to point out that there is an equilibrium between opportunity spaces of different actors. In other words, as long as we share the universe, we can't do expect to do literally anything (to other actors or their property in particular) without reprecussions, because any justification for it would be inconsistent.