4 ms·

Everyone is entitled to (and does) ignore externalities that cause discomfort to others. If Alice performs well at her job, and her company gains a lot of mark

Everyone is entitled to (and does) ignore externalities that cause discomfort to others. If Alice performs well at her job, and her company gains a lot of marketshare as a result, she has likely caused discomfort for the employees of her company's competitors. It's frightening to imagine a world in which Alice is forced to stop performing as well because of her competitors' discomfort. A simpler example: "hapless" is all over this thread, causing discomfort for those who don't want this man thrown in prison. Should "hapless" be forced to stop? Additionally, everyone is entitled to (and does) ignore public goods that they don't pay for. It's frightening to imagine a world in which we force Alice to pay for her neighbor's renovations, or to pay for a weekly advice newsletter she never signed up for. People like the man in the article make these value judgments more independently from government policy than most people do. If anything, that is your contention with him, not that he doesn't pay for things he didn't ask for, and not that he sometimes ignores the discomfort caused by his actions.

beering 13y ago
I think you misread the comment you're replying to. People are not entitled to ignore all externalities that cause discomfort to others. For example, creating toxic pollution that spreads to people around you and forcing them to pay the cost of cleanup is not OK, but you're suggesting it is? If you were affected by this kind of pollution, would you just shrug and say, "It's OK for them to ignore this externality?" And the part about not paying for public goods that you use, you seem to have misread as "not using public goods that you don't pay for". People are upset with the AirBNB guy in the article because he's causing problems for the neighbors, and profiting because he's ignoring regulations. It's profiting off the backs of other people, so he's more like a leecher than any Ayn Randian hero.
- hacker789 13y ago
  > I think you misread the comment you're replying to. I think you misread mine, because you're inserting the word "all" where I never placed it. > People are not entitled to ignore all externalities that cause discomfort to others. I agree with this. The man being vilified in this thread almost certainly does, too. > For example, creating toxic pollution that spreads to people around you and forcing them to pay the cost of cleanup is not OK I agree. > but you're suggesting it is? Not at all. I was responding to a post that vilified people who ignored externalities that cause discomfort for other people. I responded by explaining that everyone ignores externalities that cause others discomfort. Every action (or inaction) negatively and positively affects other people, and you can't be paralyzed by that. If you've ever been in a monogamous relationship, you've created externalities that caused discomfort in your romantic rivals. You made a judgement call, and decided to do it anyway. Everything is a judgement call. The man in the article made one. We're not arguing principles here; we're arguing where to draw the line. > And the part about not paying for public goods that you use, you seem to have misread as "not using public goods that you don't pay for". I don't understand why you feel I misread it that way. I was responding to a post that vilified people who felt they shouldn't be forced to pay for things that benefited them. If I plant attractive flowers in my front yard, it would be nakedly evil for me to force the family across from me to help pay for them, even though their lives are improved by the flowers. If I give someone genuinely useful advice, I shouldn't be allowed to say, "Ha! You're benefiting for free! Pay up."
RockyMcNuts 13y ago
believe it or not, some human beings try to go through life creating positive externalities, or avoiding creating negative ones... fools and value-judging tyrants, no doubt.
- hacker789 13y ago
  No, you're describing me, actually.
  - RockyMcNuts 13y ago
    you're confusing me in your attempt to interfere with my karma whoring (or possibly contribute to it LOL). if you are aware of the externality you're creating, but continuing with the activity because of even greater positive externalities, and/or exercising your rights consistent with how you would expect others to exercise them, then you're not ignoring the externality, you're taking it into account in your social calculations. If you were ignoring it, and acting for your own benefit regardless of any externalities to others, that would be antisocial. In TFA, it sort of seems like he is aware of the negative impact on neighbors and illegalities, but feels inexplicably entitled regardless.
zzzeek 13y ago
> It's frightening to imagine a world in which we force Alice to pay for her neighbor's renovations, we already live in this world, and you haven't even noticed: NYC Build it Back program: http://www.nyc.gov/html/recovery/html/home/home.shtml http://www.nyc.gov/html/recovery/html/home/home.shtml "Rep. Michael Grimm wants federal government to earmark $600 million for NYC 'Build it Back' program": http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/11/rep_michael_grimm_wants_federa.html http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/11/rep_michael_gri... New York Assisted Home Performance Grants: http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=NY17F&re=0&ee=0 http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_C... low interest housing renovation loans from NYC: http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/1869/housing-renovation-loan-information http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/1869/housing-renov... e.g. just in new york there's plenty of publicly (or in the case of assisted home performance, ratepayer funded, e.g. a tax on energy bills) funded housing renovation programs.
lmm 13y ago
> If Alice performs well at her job, and her company gains a lot of marketshare as a result, she has likely caused discomfort for the employees of her company's competitors. It's frightening to imagine a world in which Alice is forced to stop performing as well because of her competitors' discomfort. I think that's the exception rather than the rule. People are expected to act competitively in their job in a way that doesn't extend to other spheres of life. And not so long ago there was a view that there were limits on that competition; one could outdo one's competitor, but it was unseemly to press them to the point where they were forced to fire people or go bankrupt. Workers who were very successful would charge higher prices or spend less time working so as not to outcompete others too severely; companies that were very successful would license technology cheaply, or found ways to spend their money without expanding too aggressively. In the worst case, if you put a competitor out of business you were expected to acquire them on friendly terms. Many parts of the world still operate like this. It may be less efficient than the ultracapitalist way, but it's by no means "frightening".

beering 13y ago

I think you misread the comment you're replying to. People are not entitled to ignore all externalities that cause discomfort to others. For example, creating toxic pollution that spreads to people around you and forcing them to pay the cost of cleanup is not OK, but you're suggesting it is? If you were affected by this kind of pollution, would you just shrug and say, "It's OK for them to ignore this externality?" And the part about not paying for public goods that you use, you seem to have misread as "not using public goods that you don't pay for". People are upset with the AirBNB guy in the article because he's causing problems for the neighbors, and profiting because he's ignoring regulations. It's profiting off the backs of other people, so he's more like a leecher than any Ayn Randian hero.

hacker789 13y ago
> I think you misread the comment you're replying to. I think you misread mine, because you're inserting the word "all" where I never placed it. > People are not entitled to ignore all externalities that cause discomfort to others. I agree with this. The man being vilified in this thread almost certainly does, too. > For example, creating toxic pollution that spreads to people around you and forcing them to pay the cost of cleanup is not OK I agree. > but you're suggesting it is? Not at all. I was responding to a post that vilified people who ignored externalities that cause discomfort for other people. I responded by explaining that everyone ignores externalities that cause others discomfort. Every action (or inaction) negatively and positively affects other people, and you can't be paralyzed by that. If you've ever been in a monogamous relationship, you've created externalities that caused discomfort in your romantic rivals. You made a judgement call, and decided to do it anyway. Everything is a judgement call. The man in the article made one. We're not arguing principles here; we're arguing where to draw the line. > And the part about not paying for public goods that you use, you seem to have misread as "not using public goods that you don't pay for". I don't understand why you feel I misread it that way. I was responding to a post that vilified people who felt they shouldn't be forced to pay for things that benefited them. If I plant attractive flowers in my front yard, it would be nakedly evil for me to force the family across from me to help pay for them, even though their lives are improved by the flowers. If I give someone genuinely useful advice, I shouldn't be allowed to say, "Ha! You're benefiting for free! Pay up."

RockyMcNuts 13y ago

believe it or not, some human beings try to go through life creating positive externalities, or avoiding creating negative ones... fools and value-judging tyrants, no doubt.

hacker789 13y ago
No, you're describing me, actually.
- RockyMcNuts 13y ago
  you're confusing me in your attempt to interfere with my karma whoring (or possibly contribute to it LOL). if you are aware of the externality you're creating, but continuing with the activity because of even greater positive externalities, and/or exercising your rights consistent with how you would expect others to exercise them, then you're not ignoring the externality, you're taking it into account in your social calculations. If you were ignoring it, and acting for your own benefit regardless of any externalities to others, that would be antisocial. In TFA, it sort of seems like he is aware of the negative impact on neighbors and illegalities, but feels inexplicably entitled regardless.

zzzeek 13y ago

> It's frightening to imagine a world in which we force Alice to pay for her neighbor's renovations, we already live in this world, and you haven't even noticed: NYC Build it Back program: http://www.nyc.gov/html/recovery/html/home/home.shtml http://www.nyc.gov/html/recovery/html/home/home.shtml "Rep. Michael Grimm wants federal government to earmark $600 million for NYC 'Build it Back' program": http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/11/rep_michael_grimm_wants_federa.html http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/11/rep_michael_gri... New York Assisted Home Performance Grants: http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=NY17F&re=0&ee=0 http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_C... low interest housing renovation loans from NYC: http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/1869/housing-renovation-loan-information http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/1869/housing-renov... e.g. just in new york there's plenty of publicly (or in the case of assisted home performance, ratepayer funded, e.g. a tax on energy bills) funded housing renovation programs.

lmm 13y ago

> If Alice performs well at her job, and her company gains a lot of marketshare as a result, she has likely caused discomfort for the employees of her company's competitors. It's frightening to imagine a world in which Alice is forced to stop performing as well because of her competitors' discomfort. I think that's the exception rather than the rule. People are expected to act competitively in their job in a way that doesn't extend to other spheres of life. And not so long ago there was a view that there were limits on that competition; one could outdo one's competitor, but it was unseemly to press them to the point where they were forced to fire people or go bankrupt. Workers who were very successful would charge higher prices or spend less time working so as not to outcompete others too severely; companies that were very successful would license technology cheaply, or found ways to spend their money without expanding too aggressively. In the worst case, if you put a competitor out of business you were expected to acquire them on friendly terms. Many parts of the world still operate like this. It may be less efficient than the ultracapitalist way, but it's by no means "frightening".