3 ms·

I got into a long discussion with eli_gottlieb here but I don't think either of us got the answers we were looking for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9335

I got into a long discussion with eli_gottlieb here but I don't think either of us got the answers we were looking for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9335125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9335125

danbruc 11y ago
I read your discussion there, let me pick one of your early comments. It does this (in general) by giving points to people who satisfy other people's values and proportional to how much they satisfy them. These points can be used to satisfy their own values after and this creates a feedback loop of value satisfaction. IMO a very good thing. If I understand you correctly, you think that what Adam Smith explained with the invisible hand, that all individuals pursuing their best interests will usually result in a beneficial situation for society as a whole, is true. If that is the case I have to disagree, otherwise just ignore the rest of the comment. There is nothing that justifies this assumption, if everyone just tries to maximize its individual gain there is no force that will ensure that gains for society as a whole are simultaneously maximized. Let's just stick with the topic of the article, slavery. If a few people exploit the workforce of a large number of slaves they surly maximize their personal gains but you can hardly argue that it leads to a good overall situation. By the way, I want to avoid the moral discussion and will just take it for granted that we agree that a world in which the slaves are not slaves but receive a fair compensation for their work is a better world.
- grinnbearit 11y ago
  > that all individuals pursuing their best interests will usually result in a beneficial situation for society as a whole, The very next sentence I wrote disagrees. > Of course there are problems, every system has winners and losers and thats why we have taxation and welfare, to smooth out some of the issues. The choice of capitalism depends on moral subjectivity, its a necessary part of the discussion. As I said before, capitalism is a type 2 system. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9338441 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9338441 At the end of the discussion I asked a question that eli_gottlieb didn't get around to answering. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9345477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9345477 This was specific to economic democracy but you can replace that with any other alternative system, the question would still apply and be interesting.
  - danbruc 11y ago
    I am not sure if I don't understand your reasoning with regard to subjective or objective morality or if I disagree. I don't think it matters. We want an economic system that honours some moral objectives. To come up with such an system we have to first establish our moral values, but I don't see in which way it matters if those values are based on subjective or objective morality. Especially because there is no proof that moral objectivism is true it is at least for the moment also just a subjective position. So how could we even think about choosing an economic system based on that distinction if we don't know which is true? For the records, I am heavily on the subjective side but think that only very few values or assumptions are required to build an entire system of moral values upon them. Let me pick an example, all humans are equal. This might be an objective truth or a society might just agree on that as a foundational value. But in both cases you can build the exactly same society or economic system that honours this value independent of its origin. But I guess I missed a crucial point of your argument, maybe our understanding of subjective and objective morality differs. Are you talking about the distinction between a society where everybody lives by his own moral values as opposed to a society where all people share more or less the same moral values?
    - grinnbearit 11y ago
      I should define my terms better. For this discussion, I'll initially restrict it to just "value subjectivity", i.e. a person's desires are dependent on their state of mind and that state of mind is personal and varying. For example, ranking your preference for a cool glass of water and a delicious sandwich depends on how thirsty you are. Scale this up to millions of people and you find that there is no objective ordering of "things" that can satisfy everybody bhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem Capitalism, as a system, recognises this and is effectively a distributed consensus mechanism. Allocating "points" to people who provide the most value to the system. BUT like any system, it has winners and losers (not necessarily evil, just benefitting) and without checks and balances would lead to a state of the world that I'm unhappy with. Which is why taxation and welfare. For any proposed alternative/update, I'm interested in the new winners and losers as well as how this distributed consensus is achieved.

danbruc 11y ago

I read your discussion there, let me pick one of your early comments. It does this (in general) by giving points to people who satisfy other people's values and proportional to how much they satisfy them. These points can be used to satisfy their own values after and this creates a feedback loop of value satisfaction. IMO a very good thing. If I understand you correctly, you think that what Adam Smith explained with the invisible hand, that all individuals pursuing their best interests will usually result in a beneficial situation for society as a whole, is true. If that is the case I have to disagree, otherwise just ignore the rest of the comment. There is nothing that justifies this assumption, if everyone just tries to maximize its individual gain there is no force that will ensure that gains for society as a whole are simultaneously maximized. Let's just stick with the topic of the article, slavery. If a few people exploit the workforce of a large number of slaves they surly maximize their personal gains but you can hardly argue that it leads to a good overall situation. By the way, I want to avoid the moral discussion and will just take it for granted that we agree that a world in which the slaves are not slaves but receive a fair compensation for their work is a better world.

grinnbearit 11y ago
> that all individuals pursuing their best interests will usually result in a beneficial situation for society as a whole, The very next sentence I wrote disagrees. > Of course there are problems, every system has winners and losers and thats why we have taxation and welfare, to smooth out some of the issues. The choice of capitalism depends on moral subjectivity, its a necessary part of the discussion. As I said before, capitalism is a type 2 system. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9338441 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9338441 At the end of the discussion I asked a question that eli_gottlieb didn't get around to answering. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9345477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9345477 This was specific to economic democracy but you can replace that with any other alternative system, the question would still apply and be interesting.
- danbruc 11y ago
  I am not sure if I don't understand your reasoning with regard to subjective or objective morality or if I disagree. I don't think it matters. We want an economic system that honours some moral objectives. To come up with such an system we have to first establish our moral values, but I don't see in which way it matters if those values are based on subjective or objective morality. Especially because there is no proof that moral objectivism is true it is at least for the moment also just a subjective position. So how could we even think about choosing an economic system based on that distinction if we don't know which is true? For the records, I am heavily on the subjective side but think that only very few values or assumptions are required to build an entire system of moral values upon them. Let me pick an example, all humans are equal. This might be an objective truth or a society might just agree on that as a foundational value. But in both cases you can build the exactly same society or economic system that honours this value independent of its origin. But I guess I missed a crucial point of your argument, maybe our understanding of subjective and objective morality differs. Are you talking about the distinction between a society where everybody lives by his own moral values as opposed to a society where all people share more or less the same moral values?
  - grinnbearit 11y ago
    I should define my terms better. For this discussion, I'll initially restrict it to just "value subjectivity", i.e. a person's desires are dependent on their state of mind and that state of mind is personal and varying. For example, ranking your preference for a cool glass of water and a delicious sandwich depends on how thirsty you are. Scale this up to millions of people and you find that there is no objective ordering of "things" that can satisfy everybody bhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem Capitalism, as a system, recognises this and is effectively a distributed consensus mechanism. Allocating "points" to people who provide the most value to the system. BUT like any system, it has winners and losers (not necessarily evil, just benefitting) and without checks and balances would lead to a state of the world that I'm unhappy with. Which is why taxation and welfare. For any proposed alternative/update, I'm interested in the new winners and losers as well as how this distributed consensus is achieved.