4 ms·

I think you might find this line of inquiry more productive if you roll back on ethics, and don't give up either of "deserve" or "have" for free. Start by tabo

by Cushman 14y ago

I think you might find this line of inquiry more productive if you roll back on ethics, and don't give up either of "deserve" or "have" for free. Start by tabooing "property" and assuming consequentialism. We have a monetary system that abstracts the idea of value; ownership isn't necessary for that to exist. The question we want to answer is, if we give an individual control over some value, and through their actions they cause additional value to come into being, how much of that additional value should we, through use of violence, enable them to control? The answer may range from "none of it" all the way up to "all of it". Why would it be any of it? Possible reasons are at least twofold: First, that person may have demonstrated a unique ability to multiply value, which we wish to harness. Second, it may incentivize others who desire control to be more productive. But lots more questions fall out of that. How likely is this person to be unusually productive again? How much of an incentive is this control to others, and how does it affect the overall growth of value? How much of an incentive is necessary to maintain our desired rate of growth? What is our desired rate of growth? And on to more complicated ones: Say we decide to afford some amount of control. Should that amount be the same regardless of the value created? Should the scale be linear, quadratic, what? How should we respond to actors who fail to create, or actually destroy value? As if that weren't enough to think about already, we now have to consider the externalities, what you might call "ethical" concerns. A couple of major ones: Does our system unfairly determine the course of an individual's life based on the circumstances of their birth, making a mockery of the concept of freedom? Does our system perversely incentivize us to manipulate it in order to increase nominal value, without an according improvement to the human condition? This isn't intended to answer your question exactly, just to point out that 1) There are a lot of problems with the way we set all this up, but 2) We did set it up this way for good reasons, and 3) Anyone who takes all of this and gives you a "Of course they do" or "Of course they don't" has been indoctrinated.

JoshTriplett 14y ago
I agree with the principle you've used as a framing device, namely exploring some of the underlying assumptions while tabooing words that would bias towards particular conclusions. However, your entire argument seems to treat maximizing value to society as the only goal, which itself makes a major assumption that many people will disagree with. In short, there's the "they deserve it because they'll use it optimally" argument, but there's also the "they won't necessarily use it optimally but it's still theirs to use as they wish" argument. You've very effectively deconstructed the first, but you've made no attempt to address the second.
- Cushman 14y ago
  You're glossing over a subtle tautology, I think: "Deserving" is a weak form of property, socially but not legally compelling. When we say, "They deserve to have it because it's theirs," we are saying that we somewhat feel they should have it because we strongly feel they should have it; we are saying nothing. The crucial question is, why do we feel they should have it? "It's theirs", "they earned it", "right to property"— these things are synonyms for the question. What are the real, underlying values that make us feel better when these "rights" are upheld, worse when they are ignored? Now, personally I don't believe that the utilitarian explanation is anything more than a rationalization; the real-world history of the global economy is a writhing mass of motives, incentives, morals and power relationships which we have no hope of unpacking, and which we have no reason to think have arrived at any optimal result. However, I do think analyzing the former gets you quite a bit closer to something describably true than any amount of arguing over the latter.
  - JoshTriplett 14y ago
    > When we say, "They deserve to have it because it's theirs," we are saying that we somewhat feel they should have it because we strongly feel they should have it; we are saying nothing. True, but I never said that phrase, or any other tautological statement. I specifically mentioned the argument that doesn't talk about "deserving" at all, and in particular the argument that explicitly dismisses the idea that whoever would use it more efficiently deserves it more. As for the underlying values in question: "they earned it so they get to choose how to use it" comes fairly close, though I feel certain that better statements of that principle exist (preferably tabooing "earned"). (I've also intentionally left out the cases that raise extra complexity and social questions/conventions, like inheritance.) "Utilitiarian" is another term whose connotations you have to watch out for: whose utility? You've made the argument for overall social utility, but ignored the one for individual utility. In any case, I'm not looking to actually explore that argument in depth, mostly because all the arguments on all sides have been argued to death; I simply wanted to compliment you on the deconstruction-based argument, while mentioning another form of the argument that you didn't appear to have considered.
bjhoops1 14y ago
Thank you for pointing out how incredibly complicated and thorny the issue is. >how much of that additional value should we... enable them to control? The answer may range from "none of it" all the way up to "all of it". Both extremes are wrong. I find myself frustrated that in the US at least (where top marginal income tax rates have been plummeting for the past 30+ years under the influence of neo-liberalism), far too many people are comfortable flirting with the "all of it" end of the spectrum.

by Cushman 14y ago

JoshTriplett 14y ago

I agree with the principle you've used as a framing device, namely exploring some of the underlying assumptions while tabooing words that would bias towards particular conclusions. However, your entire argument seems to treat maximizing value to society as the only goal, which itself makes a major assumption that many people will disagree with. In short, there's the "they deserve it because they'll use it optimally" argument, but there's also the "they won't necessarily use it optimally but it's still theirs to use as they wish" argument. You've very effectively deconstructed the first, but you've made no attempt to address the second.

Cushman 14y ago
You're glossing over a subtle tautology, I think: "Deserving" is a weak form of property, socially but not legally compelling. When we say, "They deserve to have it because it's theirs," we are saying that we somewhat feel they should have it because we strongly feel they should have it; we are saying nothing. The crucial question is, why do we feel they should have it? "It's theirs", "they earned it", "right to property"— these things are synonyms for the question. What are the real, underlying values that make us feel better when these "rights" are upheld, worse when they are ignored? Now, personally I don't believe that the utilitarian explanation is anything more than a rationalization; the real-world history of the global economy is a writhing mass of motives, incentives, morals and power relationships which we have no hope of unpacking, and which we have no reason to think have arrived at any optimal result. However, I do think analyzing the former gets you quite a bit closer to something describably true than any amount of arguing over the latter.
- JoshTriplett 14y ago
  > When we say, "They deserve to have it because it's theirs," we are saying that we somewhat feel they should have it because we strongly feel they should have it; we are saying nothing. True, but I never said that phrase, or any other tautological statement. I specifically mentioned the argument that doesn't talk about "deserving" at all, and in particular the argument that explicitly dismisses the idea that whoever would use it more efficiently deserves it more. As for the underlying values in question: "they earned it so they get to choose how to use it" comes fairly close, though I feel certain that better statements of that principle exist (preferably tabooing "earned"). (I've also intentionally left out the cases that raise extra complexity and social questions/conventions, like inheritance.) "Utilitiarian" is another term whose connotations you have to watch out for: whose utility? You've made the argument for overall social utility, but ignored the one for individual utility. In any case, I'm not looking to actually explore that argument in depth, mostly because all the arguments on all sides have been argued to death; I simply wanted to compliment you on the deconstruction-based argument, while mentioning another form of the argument that you didn't appear to have considered.

bjhoops1 14y ago

Thank you for pointing out how incredibly complicated and thorny the issue is. >how much of that additional value should we... enable them to control? The answer may range from "none of it" all the way up to "all of it". Both extremes are wrong. I find myself frustrated that in the US at least (where top marginal income tax rates have been plummeting for the past 30+ years under the influence of neo-liberalism), far too many people are comfortable flirting with the "all of it" end of the spectrum.