4 ms·

I think the weakness in your analysis is that it's framed as a conflict between you and Joe. Joe isn't really trying to force you to do anything. Given that Jim

by anatoly 17y ago

I think the weakness in your analysis is that it's framed as a conflict between you and Joe. Joe isn't really trying to force you to do anything. Given that Jim is already making substance S without Joe's permission and selling it to you and others like you, Joe is not claiming that it's immoral or wrong of you to buy Jim's product. Joe is trying to make Bob, who's the head honcho where you and Jim live, to force Jim to make nice with Joe and only sell substance S after obtaining Joe's permission to do so. The extra layers of indirection are essential, because while everyone would agree that it's logical and reasonable for you to prefer buying Jim's product to dying (this being your point), it isn't at all clear that Bob ought to agree with that. Bob is supposed to represent not just your interests, but also interests of all other people in the area. It's conceivable that a lot of them will die much sooner if Joe switches to penis pills, than if Joe didn't and continued to develop life-saving drugs. It's fine for you to decide to put your life first and deal with the fallout as it comes; do you have an argument as to why Bob ought to do the same?

mcantelon 17y ago
If Joe gives permission to Jim to make the drugs, then it lends legitimacy to Jim's drugs which may lead people to buy them that might otherwise buy direct from Joe.
frig 17y ago
It is a little weak sticking with the individuals. But look at Bob's incentives: If you're Bob -- the duly-elected representative of the people's republic of west brokistan -- then you've got the following calculation: - either you let Jim keep turning out off-brand tamiflu and (hypothetically) thereby saving hundred-k to millions of lives ("didn't mess with a good thing") - or you shut Jim down, then have the fun task of explaining to your constituents that it's really better that they no longer be able to afford those drugs ...at which point either: - Bob uses an argument like Joe's argument; this isn't going to be convincing to the public @ large b/c: -- if they were buying Jim's stuff and now they can't the same counter-arguments as in the individual case applies -- if they weren't buying Jim's stuff they now can't if they need it in the future -- additionally Bob is taking away local industry and local autonomy so on in favor of foreign interests (which rarely fares well in any country) ...which is awesome for getting reelected; or maybe Bob tries the realpolitik strategy and explains: - oh sorry I couldn't negotiate a good (i) option which is why we're forced picking between (ii) and (iii) - oh but also sorry (oh, so very sorry) we can't pick (ii) even though we'd like to b/c doing so risks some terribly nasty trade sanctions that we just can't afford right now ...which is honest but makes Bob look so completely useless I wouldn't like Bob's re-election odds with this approach, either. So I think given the incentives Bob's likely choices are obvious, assuming he's an elected official of some sort; a more dictatorial head honcho might make a different decision. Whether someone more free to take a stab at long-term utility maximization ought to let Jim keep operating or not is pretty much a function of trade sanctions and so on first and only after that some calculation about "what amount of drugs will we be able to buy in the future that cover what % of what conditions will be significant in the future"?

by anatoly 17y ago

mcantelon 17y ago

If Joe gives permission to Jim to make the drugs, then it lends legitimacy to Jim's drugs which may lead people to buy them that might otherwise buy direct from Joe.

frig 17y ago

It is a little weak sticking with the individuals. But look at Bob's incentives: If you're Bob -- the duly-elected representative of the people's republic of west brokistan -- then you've got the following calculation: - either you let Jim keep turning out off-brand tamiflu and (hypothetically) thereby saving hundred-k to millions of lives ("didn't mess with a good thing") - or you shut Jim down, then have the fun task of explaining to your constituents that it's really better that they no longer be able to afford those drugs ...at which point either: - Bob uses an argument like Joe's argument; this isn't going to be convincing to the public @ large b/c: -- if they were buying Jim's stuff and now they can't the same counter-arguments as in the individual case applies -- if they weren't buying Jim's stuff they now can't if they need it in the future -- additionally Bob is taking away local industry and local autonomy so on in favor of foreign interests (which rarely fares well in any country) ...which is awesome for getting reelected; or maybe Bob tries the realpolitik strategy and explains: - oh sorry I couldn't negotiate a good (i) option which is why we're forced picking between (ii) and (iii) - oh but also sorry (oh, so very sorry) we can't pick (ii) even though we'd like to b/c doing so risks some terribly nasty trade sanctions that we just can't afford right now ...which is honest but makes Bob look so completely useless I wouldn't like Bob's re-election odds with this approach, either. So I think given the incentives Bob's likely choices are obvious, assuming he's an elected official of some sort; a more dictatorial head honcho might make a different decision. Whether someone more free to take a stab at long-term utility maximization ought to let Jim keep operating or not is pretty much a function of trade sanctions and so on first and only after that some calculation about "what amount of drugs will we be able to buy in the future that cover what % of what conditions will be significant in the future"?