The Morality of Scale [Archive]

Chimera

26 Feb 2006, 06:50 PM

Ka.avik

26 Feb 2006, 06:56 PM

My reply is to say that stuff needs to be done, and after some point that means someone needs to do it. As that scale increases, the society's needs grow enough to require that either we all acknowledge that it cant be done, or we give authorized society-representatives (legislators, cops, etc...) the power they need to make things happen.

This is very much not an answer, simply a comment, that your observation is correct, and always will be.

Kill a man, go to jail. Kill four men and be executed. Kill a thousand, and be invited to peace talks. *shrug*

Chimera

26 Feb 2006, 07:22 PM

Thanks for the response, that description was well framed.

And I can actually accept the idea of appointing representives to do things that are unfeasible on an individual scale. However, once appointed, shouldn't they be held to a higher standard rather than a lower one? My reasoning is they have greater potential to do harm, and thus should pass a stricter test. Yet the opposite seems to be the case.

Society changes slowly, trends come and go, but so many things seem to hang around just by the sheer power of inertia and I think this is one of them.

joft

26 Feb 2006, 08:24 PM

i think you answered all your own questions in the title of your thread

Chimera

26 Feb 2006, 09:12 PM

Not sure what that means. The title is the question I'm asking, as in why does this exist?

joft

26 Feb 2006, 09:17 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Returns_to_scale

Chimera

26 Feb 2006, 10:24 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Returns_to_scale

Ok that's a pretty good analogy to this question.

Economy of scale assumes the unit cost of production is rising at a slower rate than the number of goods produced. I'd say police and law enforcement is a good example of this, it generally being cheaper to have one agency rather than every individual have their own police force. The hardcore anarchists might argue this, and I can see how you can break it down: many would see a national police force replacing all local police as a terrible idea (lack of response, danger of centralize power), then keep going down the ladder.

I'd say war is a good example of diseconomy of scale, since its cost usually only increases and its only product is destruction. Some will make the argument that it's a net decrease in destruction, compared to what would happen if no action was taken. I don't see anyway to measure that. Granted there are also local economies of scale for weapons producers, ect..

Other interesting tidbits in there, such as ideal firm size. Relating to government again, I'd say this applies just as well, and the bureaucracy usually reaches a point were it's no longer providing a net gain to the populace.

I guess in some ways this is also the principle of democracy, where instead of calculating costs, you simply calculate what would gain the majority of support. More uncertain since you're dealing with humans and not commodities, but I would say the polling companies make a good business of it.

This is a very utilitarian, macro viewpoint. I can understand this perspective, and it probably is the type of reasoning used, but I guess it's a bit colder than I am willing to go. Even if believing humans have inherent dignity is sentimentality, I think I'd prefer to drink the kool aid on this one.

What I find frustrating is people using arguments about rights/dignity/entitlements, when the actual arguments they are using are rooted in the economy of scale.

Anyway I'm rambling, good point.

kuranes

26 Feb 2006, 10:57 PM

Kuranes says "Good question" and strokes chin thoughtfully. ( Who's he kidding ? )

Architectonic

27 Feb 2006, 03:02 PM

This has always bugged me about the world. It strikes me as a hypocrisy so large and ever present that it becomes invisible, a part of our fabric of reality. My main issue is this:

Why is something that is obviously wrong for an individual to do, ok when raised to a larger scale (i.e. That of government action)?

I'm not sure if this is necessarily the key question.

The answer is, when something that is obviously wrong for an individual to do, it is still wrong when raised to a larger scale.
You have to realize that the issues at a larger scale are in fact different. If a country is hostile towards another, then by all means they should defend themselves (even if it leads to war) pragmatism may sometimes be a more rational response than pacifism.
But many things are not 'obviously wrong' - to some people, taking over another country by force to capture land and resources may seem like a good thing to do. Real world issues can be quite complex and have multiple variables - individuals can have multiple motivations for their actions, governments more so.

But those who think it is morally wrong to steal from, or assault their neighbours, probably shouldn't think that it is morally right to start a war in another country.
Or perhaps they really do dislike their neighbours (due to them having a different religion or a million different other reasons) and would assault their neighbours, were it not for the criminal consequences.

The real question would be: Why is there a disconnect between the actions of government and the actions of an individual?

I would argue that it is because of an inherent inefficiency in the government. Perhaps the issues are being dealt with on the wrong scale, perhaps on a much larger scale than necessary.
This may be that people don't actually put much thought into it, having more of a 'well, that's just the way it is now' outlook With a general trend over the last few hundred years of gradually increasing the scale of government. It's quite possible that it has overshot the mark.
Of course the same thing has happened a number of times in history, with those large civilizations ultimately collapsing in time.
But there really seems to be a lack of accountability involved with larger government - when more people are involved, it is harder to determine the most favorable path of action and when something goes wrong it is harder to know where to place the blame.

To me, politics is not about who is in power, or what policies, or the ideologies that those people have, but the structure itself - the distribution of power and the methods in which a government goes about developing policies to meet the needs of the populace. I would agree that this needs to be examined and improved to increase the efficiency/accounatbility of government.

Jasz

27 Feb 2006, 03:04 PM

because you are highly overrating the value of "the individual"

Architectonic

27 Feb 2006, 03:20 PM

because you are highly overrating the value of "the individual"

Perhaps you'd like to explain what you mean by this.

Lee

27 Feb 2006, 03:32 PM

It's simple.

With individual interactions there is a third player, this third player is far more powerful than any of the individuals involved, this third player is the law which attempts to prevent/punish those who seek to benefit at the expense of others, while also punishing any revenge attacks. In a world without law others cannot be trusted, because it is much easier for them to benefit at your expense, your only protection is a reputation of violence, such as proactive defensive or offensive measures.

With international interactions there is no third player, or at least no law enforcement powerful enough. Others cannot be trusted because they could benefit at your expense much easier, your only defence is a proactive defence and offence, a reputation for bringing about vengeful retaliation against minor infringement becomes a necessary defence strategy (such as the Falkland's war), in order to discourage others from thinking they can screw you over.

At its most extreme, this takes the form of mutual threat of nuclear annihilation.

When law is removed from the interactions of individuals, much the same dynamic emerges, just look at countries with limited and corrupt law enforcement with their honour cultures (IOW, revenge cultures).

Edit: There are also some modifying factors to do with human psychology and moral responsiblity, whereby people are wired to have moral intuitions about interpersonal events. The further you remove the events from the individuals interpersonal bubble, the less ordinary moral rules of thumb are applied, which makes what would be immoral actions on an individual level become more acceptable on the depersonalized international stage.

ptGatsby

27 Feb 2006, 03:47 PM

Xander

27 Feb 2006, 04:49 PM

It's simple.
Wouldn't that particular line of thinking lead to a suggestion for a larger governmental body such as a world government? I forsee that this idea will be met with ridicule and disenchantment but the general whole of what you wrote seemingly indicated that it was only when either one gov faces off against another or when two forces squabble and there's nothing higher than them to quash it. Both these factors could be sorted by only one government couldn't it? Aside from the whole host of new problems that would cause of course

Lee

27 Feb 2006, 05:00 PM

Wouldn't that particular line of thinking lead to a suggestion for a larger governmental body such as a world government? I forsee that this idea will be met with ridicule and disenchantment but the general whole of what you wrote seemingly indicated that it was only when either one gov faces off against another or when two forces squabble and there's nothing higher than them to quash it. Both these factors could be sorted by only one government couldn't it? Aside from the whole host of new problems that would cause of courseIn theory yes, but you may end up exposing yourself to the greater danger of putting all your eggs in one basket.

Unifying the whole human race under one government is dangerous, because we all know what happens when governments screw up e.g. China, Russia etc.

Multiple governments simply act as protection for everyone, because it is less likely that they will all go wrong at the same time and they will be able to wage wars on those that do, like Nazi Germany. Multiple governments spread risks.

The best way to prevent the antagonist interactions I described is to tie each country to one another through economic inter-dependence. You may never be able to eliminate the dynamic I explained in the previous post, but you can water it down.

A single world government may hold even greater dangers, so while idealistically nice, I wouldn't support it.

sbw

27 Feb 2006, 05:16 PM

The best way to prevent the antagonist interactions I described is to tie each country to one another through economic inter-dependence. You may never be able to eliminate the dynamic I explained in the previous post, but you can water it down.

would you describe the post-WW2 era as behaving in accordance with this suggestion? and if so...how long till it stops working?

Scott

Lee

27 Feb 2006, 05:43 PM

would you describe the post-WW2 era as behaving in accordance with this suggestion? and if so...how long till it stops working?Yeah, I suppose it would.

A free market provides incentives to individuals, those individual actions have the emergent consequence of getting goods and services to as many people as possible at the lowest costs possible, this process cares not for national borders.

Take two theoretical countries, X and Y. If all the food necessary to feed countries X and Y can be more cheaply grown in X, then it becomes economically efficient for country Y to simply buy all its food from country X. If Country Y can more cheaply deliver water to country X, then it is economically efficient for country X to buy all its water from country Y. Both countries become inter-dependent on each other to maintain wealth and well-being, meaning that antagonistic conflict is too costly.

This is a very simplistic hypothetical example, but the basic principle is essentially what has occured in the western world, countries become economically inter-dependent, though politically seperate entities. Being economically inter-dependent reduces the chances that governments will be confrontational in the first place, while political seperation helps spread the risks when they inevitably do.

That's what I think anyway, seems to make sense too.

As for when it will stop working... why should it? I do not think it needs to ever stop working, though realise that it could.

Master O

27 Feb 2006, 07:27 PM

Lee

27 Feb 2006, 07:55 PM

Master O

27 Feb 2006, 09:12 PM

Many people would consider your point to be an argument ad populum, and if many people believe it, it must be true.
sorry i should have first stated: "in my experience... " and included, "...it would seem..."

INThoughtPolice

27 Feb 2006, 09:14 PM

this third player is the law which attempts to prevent/punish those who seek to benefit at the expense of others, while also punishing any revenge attacks.
No no no, the law provides guidelines for this:
seek to benefit at the expense of others. The guidelines are intended to protect against what is society's perception of expoitation of its members. Capitalist societies thrive once everyone seeks benefit at the expense of others.

Lee

27 Feb 2006, 09:31 PM

No no no, the law provides guidelines for this:. The guidelines are intended to protect against what is society's perception of expoitation of its members. Capitalist societies thrive once everyone seeks benefit at the expense of others.No society thrives when everyone seeks benefit at the expense of others, since such a situation is zero or nagative-sum.

Capitalist society thrives when trade is allowed to occur, trade is when two people (or groups of people) value a given commodity differently and want to trade. For example, when you need some food you can go into a shop and buy that food, this is because the owner of the shop values your money more than the food he currently owns, and you value the food more than the money you own, both parties benefit from the trade, the transaction is positive-sum. Nobody here thrives at the expense of others, and the law is an organised attempt to try and make sure that all transactions are trade and not theft.

Your characterization of capitalism is innacurate, since capitalist societies thrive precisely because they change incenctives using law to prevent theft and the breaking of promises/contracts, they force people into a position where doing stuff in your own self-interest must have positive repurcussions for others.

For your statement to be correct the law would have to reward criminals.

INThoughtPolice

28 Feb 2006, 12:38 AM

No society thrives when everyone seeks benefit at the expense of others, since such a situation is zero or nagative-sum.

Capitalist society thrives when trade is allowed to occur, trade is when two people (or groups of people) value a given commodity differently and want to trade. For example, when you need some food you can go into a shop and buy that food, this is because the owner of the shop values your money more than the food he currently owns, and you value the food more than the money you own, both parties benefit from the trade, the transaction is positive-sum. Nobody here thrives at the expense of others, and the law is an organised attempt to try and make sure that all transactions are trade and not theft.

Your characterization of capitalism is innacurate, since capitalist societies thrive precisely because they change incenctives using law to prevent theft and the breaking of promises/contracts, they force people into a position where doing stuff in your own self-interest must have positive repurcussions for others.

For your statement to be correct the law would have to reward criminals.
Your observations focus completely upon the demand side of the capitalist system. Here's what you forgot:

You have failed to realize that businesses compete for profit at the expense of one another. A basic example: when the Coca-Cola Company experiences profit increases because they are able to increase efficiency and wage an effective advertising campaign, PepsiCo will experience profit losses which will likely result in the reduction of its workforce and other changes within the company.

You see, capitalism rewards those that are able to most effectively market and efficiently produce a demanded product (and society collectively benefits from this). When Coca-Cola employees are able to do this more effectively, profit increases occur at the expense of PepsiCo and its employees.

I believe that there is a great deal of truth to what you have said however, you have failed to remember that competition must have both winners and losers.

Your characterization of capitalism is innacurate
I would say we are both accurate but we both failed to account for all aspects of the system.

Lee

28 Feb 2006, 01:35 AM

Your observations focus completely upon the demand side of the capitalist system. Here's what you forgot:

You have failed to realize that businesses compete for profit at the expense of one another. A basic example: when the Coca-Cola Company experiences profit increases because they are able to increase efficiency and wage an effective advertising campaign, PepsiCo will experience profit losses which will likely result in the reduction of its workforce and other changes within the company.

You see, capitalism rewards those that are able to most effectively market and efficiently produce a demanded product (and society collectively benefits from this). When Coca-Cola employees are able to do this more effectively, profit increases occur at the expense of PepsiCo and its employees.

I believe that there is a great deal of truth to what you have said however, you have failed to remember that competition must have both winners and losers.

I would say we are both accurate but we both failed to account for all aspects of the system.No, I knew what competition means and what it does, your characterization was still incorrect, you said:

Capitalist societies thrive once everyone seeks benefit at the expense of others.The Coca-Cola company does not seek to benefit at the expense of others per se, the Coca-Cola company seeks to engage in mutually beneficial transactions with customers, in order to do that it must compete with everything else that the customer could potentially spend that same money on, but since the customer may desire soft-drinks, the Coca-Cola company must compete most strongly with other soft-drink manufacturers such as PepsiCo. Ideally Coca-Cola would avoid competing at all, it is far more preferrable to a capitalist to find an unexploited market or unspent disposable income, competition is not the preferred alternative.

The only people who suffer negative consequences for Coca-Cola's actions are those who are unable to compete effectively (i.e. failed) or find a niche in the market, thus going out of or losing business. These are the only people who suffer as a result of the actions of Coca-Cola (presuming all business practices were lawful), these consequences are not sought by Coca-Cola, but they are by-products of Coca-Cola's pursuit of customers who have alternative choices.

Competition ultimately recovers the loss of jobs at PepsiCo, because for Coca-Cola to have won requires that they delivered their product for a lower price relative to the quality demanded, this frees the consumer to spend more money on soft-drinks or in other sectors of the economy, which allows the jobs at PepsiCo to be reabsorbed into the economy.

Capitalist economies do not create a system where everyone tries to benefit at the expense others, for that to be the case employees from Coca-Cola would have to march over to PepsiCo and start taking capital and money through force and not trade. Btw, never say "free trade," there is no such thing as "unfree trade," because it isn't trade in the first place if it isn't a free choice /tangent.

The difference is that "benefiting at the expense of another" implies theft, but in capitalist economies it is about "benefiting from anothers failure," the switch in language is subtle but important, because the first implies something far more than fair competition. Plus, seeking to better a competitor is a sub-goal, not the ultimate goal of business.

Zephyrus055

28 Feb 2006, 01:51 AM

Hustler

28 Feb 2006, 01:54 AM

Isn't this just a simple application of the 'might makes right' principle?

Zephyrus055

28 Feb 2006, 01:58 AM

Isn't this just a simple application of the 'might makes right' principle?
Naw, might is just one means of making it happen. It doesn't necessarily make it right, because there is no such thing as right moral conduct unless you accept the value system supporting it.

I never accept value systems unless they serve some utility to me.

Hustler

28 Feb 2006, 03:40 AM

Naw, might is just one means of making it happen. It doesn't necessarily make it right, because there is no such thing as right moral conduct unless you accept the value system supporting it.

I never accept value systems unless they serve some utility to me.

I think you don't understand what 'might makes right' means.

Chimera

28 Feb 2006, 05:21 AM

But many things are not 'obviously wrong' - to some people, taking over another country by force to capture land and resources may seem like a good thing to do. Real world issues can be quite complex and have multiple variables - individuals can have multiple motivations for their actions, governments more so.

First I agree with the vast majority of your response, I don't think we're very far apart on our view on this. Second, I agree that people's definitions of what is obviously wrong will vary widely. I was not referring to it in the sense of some objective morality, but within a person's individual morality. In other words someone that would decry the individual case but support the government doing the same thing.

But there really seems to be a lack of accountability involved with larger government - when more people are involved, it is harder to determine the most favorable path of action and when something goes wrong it is harder to know where to place the blame.
.
.
To me, politics is not about who is in power, or what policies, or the ideologies that those people have, but the structure itself

These two quotes definitely struck a chord with me, definitely agree. This is something generally shrouded by the partisian back and forth. "Don't blame me I voted for Kodos!"

Chimera

28 Feb 2006, 05:22 AM

because you are highly overrating the value of "the individual"

If you have time I'd also appreciate you expanding on this. I don't mean this thread to be an exercise in intellectual masturbation, I'd really like to hear different views on this. This dichotomy is so rampant in western culture that I'm looking for someone to give a persuasive argument for it, because I just assume I'm missing some part of the picture.

Chimera

28 Feb 2006, 05:36 AM

There are also some modifying factors to do with human psychology and moral responsiblity, whereby people are wired to have moral intuitions about interpersonal events. The further you remove the events from the individuals interpersonal bubble, the less ordinary moral rules of thumb are applied, which makes what would be immoral actions on an individual level become more acceptable on the depersonalized international stage.

That's a good way to put it. Obfuscation by abstraction.

Unifying the whole human race under one government is dangerous, because we all know what happens when governments screw up e.g. China, Russia etc.

Multiple governments simply act as protection for everyone, because it is less likely that they will all go wrong at the same time and they will be able to wage wars on those that do, like Nazi Germany. Multiple governments spread risks.

The best way to prevent the antagonist interactions I described is to tie each country to one another through economic inter-dependence. You may never be able to eliminate the dynamic I explained in the previous post, but you can water it down.

A single world government may hold even greater dangers, so while idealistically nice, I wouldn't support it.

This is tangential but I agree. :) This is why the idea of world government sounds horrendous to me, it's a cliché but it's true, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Even if you could get some hypothetical perfect benevolent dictator in power, who's to say who would fallow? It's a fools bet.

Architectonic

28 Feb 2006, 05:39 AM

You see, capitalism rewards those that are able to most effectively market and efficiently produce a demanded product (and society collectively benefits from this). When Coca-Cola employees are able to do this more effectively, profit increases occur at the expense of PepsiCo and its employees.

But its not zero-sum. First of all as Lee pointed out, Coca-Cola has to compete with everything else - not just other beverages, but any other use for that money. Secondly, due to competition, all businesses are forced to provide their goods/services more efficiently. More efficiently doesn't necessarily mean hiring less employees, or paying them less, it means providing the goods/services more effectively. (Those possibilities will only occur if there are gross inefficiencies in that area.)

This is a net gain right across the economy (As you said, 'society collectively benefits from this'). Even if some businesses cannot compete effectively and are forced to downsize, or even close down, this is not a complete loss. The individuals who worked for that business have skills and experience, which may well be more effectively used somewhere else. Likewise, that business still has assets that can be sold to other businesses (or the whole business can be sold, undergo restructuring and then be able to compete effectively again).
A period where a business struggles to make a profit can sometimes be rather healthy - it forces efficiency improvements to be made, that can that can then allow the business to grow larger and provide more products/services and hire more employees etc.

In theory yes, but you may end up exposing yourself to the greater danger of putting all your eggs in one basket.

I don't think Xander was necessarily suggesting a single world government, but rather some sort of global union or group of treaties between a majority of the world's governments. One which only deals with global issues (many economic issues are not global issues). One, that basically attempts to fairly mediate disputes between countries. (Generally with the intention to avoid war.)

Obviously I don't mean to suggest something like the (currently) ineffective UN, nor some ridiculous pre-WW1 scenario. But the current system where the country with the largest army/most powerful weapons has the right to do as they please (or even claim they have a right to police the rest of the world), is clearly not that effective either.

Chimera

28 Feb 2006, 05:45 AM

I believe the answer is generally fairly simple, though the implications are normally fairly complex;

People act different collectively than they do individually.

People have less responsibility collectively, for instance, which results in the 'belief' that 'stealing' is wanted (beneficial for them). After that conclusion is reached, they work back to find logical justification so that they can maintain their own self-image/ego.

There is a tendency to apply economics to this problem, but I believe that psychology has it covered already... in a far more comprehensive way.

Simply put, ethics of individuals at large numbers diminish. It doesn't change whether an action should be, or is, moral.

Psychology does seems like the primary explanation for the majority of people. I think like Architectonic said most people just don't think it through, but are there good arguments out there for the split? What about the pundits or the poly sci professors or the talking heads? Do they realize this and cynically ignore it or do they flow from reasoned arguments like utilitarianism? I can at least understand the utilitarian viewpoint even if I don't agree with it.

INThoughtPolice

28 Feb 2006, 05:47 AM

The Coca-Cola company does not seek to benefit at the expense of others per se, the Coca-Cola company seeks to engage in mutually beneficial transactions with customers Yes.

in order to do that it must compete with everything else that the customer could potentially spend that same money on,
therefore each business benefits at the expense of other businesses.

Ideally Coca-Cola would avoid competing at all, it is far more preferrable to a capitalist to find an unexploited market or unspent disposable income, competition is not the preferred alternative.In which case a monopoly is present and customers are subject to exploitation and the industry no longer has incentive to increase efficiency or quality. A bad situation.

The only people who suffer negative consequences for Coca-Cola's actions are those who are unable to compete effectively (i.e. failed) or find a niche in the market, thus going out of or losing business. These are the only people who suffer as a result of the actions of Coca-Cola (presuming all business practices were lawful),This suffering is not limited to the soft-drink industry. When businesses fail and more efficient methods of production are devised (in other words, competition occurs), there are going to be people that lose out. This is called structural unemployment. On the positive side, this welfare loss is temporary as jobs and opportunities shift sectors. The benefits of such a system far outweigh the negatives and that is what makes the capitalist system the most effective way to raise the general welfare of all members of a society.

these consequences are not sought by Coca-Cola, but they are by-products of Coca-Cola's pursuit of customers who have alternative choices.of course, but it still happens.

Competition ultimately recovers the loss of jobs at PepsiCo, because for Coca-Cola to have won requires that they delivered their product for a lower price relative to the quality demanded, this frees the consumer to spend more money on soft-drinks or in other sectors of the economy, which allows the jobs at PepsiCo to be reabsorbed into the economy.
Lol, this assumes that the economy is expanding and jobs are available. If the jobs are not available in Houston, TX, or unaffordable eduaction is required to get the available jobs, these former PepsiCo employees are out of luck.

Btw, never say "free trade," there is no such thing as "unfree trade," because it isn't trade in the first place if it isn't a free choice /tangent.

Not true. I HAVE TO buy food, water, etc. How free is it really??? I must buy these things or I die (not very free, is it?). BTW, no state on Earth does not have tarriffs etc. Free trade does not exist at the moment.

The difference is that "benefiting at the expense of another" implies theftNO!

but in capitalist economies it is about "benefiting from anothers failure," not necessarily total failure, and hey, this is the same thing as benifitting at the expense of others.

the switch in language is subtle but important.No, it is just what it is, a switch in language.

Chimera

28 Feb 2006, 06:02 AM

I don't think you really need a cynic to point this out, but...

people/society/government all do what they can get away with. right now it is completely unacceptable to most of the world what the U.S. Government is doing in Iraq, but who's going to do something about it? do you think we'd be over there right now if we weren't the premier SuperPower in the world.

Our current Administration fears no spanking.

Well I am a hopeless optimist sometimes, probably my INFP father's influence, but yes I am not as naïve as I sometimes appear. I wondered if I should even include the Iraq example as that's an issue most people feel strongly about and can grab onto, often ignoring the other ones. What about wealth redistribution, business regulation, drug/sex/lifestyle laws? These are less black and white issues amongst which reasonable people disagree, yet this individual/collective (thanks ptGatsby, that's just the right word) split applies to them as well.

Chimera

28 Feb 2006, 06:19 AM

When thinking about morality, it is best to reach beyond SJness and toward NTness. Think of morality as a waste of intellectual effort, then think of the results and you will see the light at the end of the tunnel.

I don't think morality is a waste of intellectual effort at all, we make moral choices constantly everyday. I suppose it's a bit loaded word and most people associate it to religion and blind obedience to a code of ethics, but it's also the process of reasoning out your own values. Is everything derivable from first principles? Not that I've found, so some things you have to take on faith, but that doesn't mean you can't use logic from that point.

INThoughtPolice

28 Feb 2006, 07:01 AM

But its not zero-sum. First of all as Lee pointed out, Coca-Cola has to compete with everything else - not just other beverages, but any other use for that money. Secondly, due to competition, all businesses are forced to provide their goods/services more efficiently. More efficiently doesn't necessarily mean hiring less employees, or paying them less, it means providing the goods/services more effectively. (Those possibilities will only occur if there are gross inefficiencies in that area.)

This is a net gain right across the economy (As you said, 'society collectively benefits from this'). Even if some businesses cannot compete effectively and are forced to downsize, or even close down, this is not a complete loss. The individuals who worked for that business have skills and experience, which may well be more effectively used somewhere else. Likewise, that business still has assets that can be sold to other businesses (or the whole business can be sold, undergo restructuring and then be able to compete effectively again).
A period where a business struggles to make a profit can sometimes be rather healthy - it forces efficiency improvements to be made, that can that can then allow the business to grow larger and provide more products/services and hire more employees etc.

My response to Lee applies to you as well.

Zephyrus055

28 Feb 2006, 01:13 PM

I don't think morality is a waste of intellectual effort at all, we make moral choices constantly everyday. I suppose it's a bit loaded word and most people associate it to religion and blind obedience to a code of ethics, but it's also the process of reasoning out your own values. Is everything derivable from first principles? Not that I've found, so some things you have to take on faith, but that doesn't mean you can't use logic from that point.
Eh, well I don't see how values can be based on logic, but they can be based on utility - their usefulness. I have utility values, although I don't uphold them as absolute.

But anyway, I don't generally make moral choices. I make pragmatic choices, and my values come from my experiences.

INThoughtPolice/Lee,

Hey guys. Capitalism is not the answer to everything, but it is the most efficient general economic system to date. Yes there should be regulations when business interests conflict with social or political ones, but we shouldn't have a planned or democratic economy either.

Purple-Silver Fox

28 Feb 2006, 01:34 PM

[...]
1.) If I have a neighbor who actively is trying to kill me, and I set a bomb off in a crowded shopping mall, killing 50 but also getting them. Is there a person alive that would call that anything but reckless and wanton murder?
2.) If I had a neighbor that I felt had weapons and could potentially, someday, do me harm and I went over and killed them to eliminate the threat, there's not a sane jury in the world that would acquit me.
Governments that do that typically oppose international courts, unsurprisingly. Many people do think that is unacceptable, but as already mentioned, nobody is going to stop them due to lack of force.

3.) If I feel like my neighbor is obligated to pay for my food/education/housing and I go over and take their money, there's not many people who wouldn't call that completely unjustified theft.If it were that random, it is theft. Normally the ones who can miss it pay, the needy receive, and their roles can be adjusted if their wealth changes. Not to mention that I don't know of any place where it's possible to live comfortably for an unlimited time on handouts. It is right to be eternally critical of the implementation of wealth redistribution, but the principle seems entirely correct.

4.) If I went into an individual's place of business and told them the exact details of how they should run the place, how many do you think wouldn't tell me to go fuck myself?
5.) If I went to a person's home and told them how they should live, I'd be thrown out.
You can't say it's good or bad on principle. There are cases where such regulations are a good idea, most notably where the consequences of their absence would harm the common good. If only it was clear what that is..

To me, if I couldn't justify doing something as an individual, I don't see how I could possibly justify asking my government to do it for me. It strikes me as handing over your conscience and responsibility as a human being. I realize there's this thing called society that people like to point to that makes this somehow ok, but it's always struck me as hand waving and passing the buck.[...]Associating a government with individual concerns seems strange to me. The only justification of the existence of the government is the benefit of society. Should a government place the well-being of specific persons above the common good, it throws away its legitimacy. Of course a government is composed of and acts through individuals, and society is composed of individuals (and individuals in turn define themselves in relation to society) so it is not possible to achieve perfect implementation of the common good. Again: stay critical of the implementation.

INThoughtPolice

28 Feb 2006, 09:51 PM

INThoughtPolice/Lee,

Hey guys. Capitalism is not the answer to everything, but it is the most efficient general economic system to date. Yes there should be regulations when business interests conflict with social or political ones, but we shouldn't have a planned or democratic economy either.
Yes, I agree.

faith

28 Feb 2006, 10:12 PM

Why is something that is obviously wrong for an individual to do, ok when raised to a larger scale (i.e. That of government action)?

I think this has been said before, but I'll use different terms.

It's wrong specifically because the individual is trying to use authority that's reserved for governments and larger powers.

For example, you can't capture your neighbor and lock him up in a cage even if he admits that he stole your car, but the government can lock him up in jail when he admits that. It's not that it's wrong for him to be locked up, but that it's wrong for you to assume that authority over him.

As long as there's a higher authority around to take care of the job, you must not take that power as your own. When there ceases to be a power with greater authority than you have (in that area), then it's up to you to handle the situation. In Old West movies, you often see a new sheriff struggling to assert his authority in a town. As long as there was no sheriff (or none that would assert authority), the people were expected to handle situations themselves--to exact revenge for killings or payment for theft--but when an authoritative sheriff comes on the scene, the citizens must learn to leave those tasks to the law.

On the large scale (world scene), the governments have pretty much reached the upper limits of authority. Who is there to rule the governments? Governments exercise authority over one another according to capability because there is no higher authority who will handle the situations.

Lee

28 Feb 2006, 10:47 PM

No, it is just what it is, a switch in language.Okay, I can't be bothered to tackle each point, you made numurous mistakes in your analysis, as well as a self-contradiction which I presume was born out of a misunderstanding. Anyway, I don't really care, but do wish to clarify my point, the difference is as follows.

"To benefit at anothers expense" implies a zero-sum transfer of wealth, if we were to arbitrarily assign numerical values to PepsiCo and Coca-Cola representing wealth, benefiting at anothers expense would look like this:

PepsiCo wealth (Pw) = 10
Coca-Cola wealth (Cw) = 10
Total = 20

Benefiting at anothers expense is a direct transfer of wealth. So we can -3 from Pw and +3 onto Cw.

This would give us the values:

Pw = 7
Cw = 13

The total wealth remains 20. This is what a zero-sum transaction would look like.

In reality, such a theft would be negative-sum, in order for the Coca-Cola company to successfully steal the money, in order to benefit at the expense of PepsiCo they would have to expend time and energy. While theiving the 3 from Pw, they would expend 1, so the final numbers would look like this:

Pw = 7
Cw = 12

The total is 19, less than we began with, it's negative-sum.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, competition between Coca-Cola and PepsiCo takes neither of these forms, but instead requires a third player - the customer, so:

Pw = 20
Cw = 20
Customer = 10
Total = 50

Now, the customer values the each unit of wealth from soft-drink manufacturers more than it is worth to the soft-drink manufacturers. This is because the customer values the soft-drink more than the money they pay for it, and the soft-drink manufacturer values the money more than the soft-drink, this is why they trade, because they both get something out of it. So for the sake of this post, when we transfer a unit of wealth to or from the customer, the unit doubles in value.

To say that Coca-Cola benefit at the expense of PepsiCo presumes that the 10 representing the customers wealth already belonged to PepsiCo, but this is not the case, so:

So let's assume that the customer taded 7 with Coca-Cola products and 3 with PepsiCo products, we would get.

Pw = 23
Cw = 27
Cust. = 20
Total = 70

This is positive sum, because the total is more than it was originally. These numbers are arbitrary to demonstrate a point, I do not presume that they accurately represent transactions.

Coca-Cola do not benefit at the expense of PepsiCo, no more than the winner of a marathon benefits at the expense of second place, or second place benefits at the expense of third place. The winner benefits for doing a better job and benefits because of the failure of competition to do better, they do not directly benefit at the expense of others.

Blue

1 Mar 2006, 01:07 AM

Social contract. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract)

+Blue

Zephyrus055

1 Mar 2006, 02:37 AM

Social contract. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract)

+Blue
I never experienced any social contract.

Zephyrus055

1 Mar 2006, 02:49 AM

Lee,

The explanation that a company is doing better than another company because they are better competitors is too simplistic to explain the complexities of the market.

If this were true, then it would follow that it would be almost impossible to establish a monopoly or oligopoly over the market, since it is almost impossible to provide efficient service to customers with a company that large.

There are variables such as customer loyalty, availability to customers, and simply the numerous practical advantages an older company has over an upstart (no matter how effective or efficient it is) that may prevent a better competitor from surpassing a lesser one.

Moreover, you are ignoring the tendency of oligopolies to cooperate with each other to maintain their dominance over the market.

In addition to this, most customers don't actively seek a better competitor.

INThoughtPolice

1 Mar 2006, 03:28 AM

Lee,
In your example above, Coca-Cola benefits from the expense of PepsiCo's inability to efficiently produce and market a desireable soft-drink. Yes, it was PepsiCo's own fault that they lost business to Coca-Cola, but it still happened nonetheless.

As I said before, I believe we are just using different language to describe the same thing.

Imperator055,
Lee and I are assuming that constant demand for the good exists and Lee has even gone so far as to apply a numerical value to the demand present in his example.

INThoughtPolice

1 Mar 2006, 03:52 AM

Ahhhh, I kinda knew that this would end up happening. I've changed my mind.

I agree with Lee. No society that seeks to benefit at the expense of one another can succeed. Trade occurs within our society and provides mutual benefit for those involved. No one loses. Companies may compete and gain or lose wealth, but they can only gain wealth through voluntary trade in which both parties are left better off. Capitalism is voluntary trade, nothing is forced.

Apologies,

INThoughtPolice

Chimera

1 Mar 2006, 06:10 AM

If it were that random, it is theft. Normally the ones who can miss it pay, the needy receive, and their roles can be adjusted if their wealth changes. Not to mention that I don't know of any place where it's possible to live comfortably for an unlimited time on handouts. It is right to be eternally critical of the implementation of wealth redistribution, but the principle seems entirely correct.

This seems to me an entirely reasonable view, you accept the practice as having desirable ends while being eternally skeptical of the means, as their potential for abuse is quite high. I would say in the US, too often the means are assumed, the ends the only justification. Personally I feel the means are as important as the ends they produce, a somewhat anti-utilitarian view, but I wouldn't bristle too badly in a society where the substance of your view was prevalent.

You can't say it's good or bad on principle. There are cases where such regulations are a good idea, most notably where the consequences of their absence would harm the common good. If only it was clear what that is..

I would agree it's not something that you can turn into an objective truth like mathematics, it's more dependent on how you have chosen your first principles. After all, even in the first two cases, ones first principles could be “the strong survive” or “violence and struggle is a forge to strengthen mankind” or something similar. We all have these assumptions whatever they may be, it would be impossible to live otherwise.

Associating a government with individual concerns seems strange to me. The only justification of the existence of the government is the benefit of society. Should a government place the well-being of specific persons above the common good, it throws away its legitimacy. Of course a government is composed of and acts through individuals, and society is composed of individuals (and individuals in turn define themselves in relation to society) so it is not possible to achieve perfect implementation of the common good. Again: stay critical of the implementation.

Right, and don't mistake me, even saying “an individual” is an abstraction as I'm not referring to a single or particular person, but a representative person. This is mostly semantics, but I think there is a slight distinction in saying good for a representative individual and good for society. I would say that something that is good for an abstract individual is also good for society in cases where people are not interacting with each other. When you deal with interactions things get more complicated, but you still can still reduce things to the interaction and all the traceable consequences resulting from that interaction. I would say determining things on this level is the essence of common or natural law.

But compare that type of calculation to the type usually done, determining what is best for the common good or society as a whole. This is easy to say, it even rolls off the tongue. But taking into account the millions of actors in society, their differing motivations and values, and trying to produce a coherent view that is best for everyone or even a simple majority? All I could offer in such a case is guesses or opinions. Sometimes I'd be right, others I'd be wrong, and at best we could store away that knowledge to never repeat the same mistake. If only that were the case! That's not to say societies never learn, but the lesson has to be pretty damn harsh before it seems to sink in. And even then after a few generations the lesson is lost or even taken as the complete opposite of it's original meaning.

Luckily, societies tend to persevere despite all this top-down bumbling, and I would speculate that is due to their own self-organizing nature, consisting of people acting in their own self interest within a local framework of common law.

I guess I have been skeptical of the means for so long, that now I see it as having a primary importance.

Chimera

2 Mar 2006, 10:00 PM

I think this has been said before, but I'll use different terms.

It's wrong specifically because the individual is trying to use authority that's reserved for governments and larger powers.

For example, you can't capture your neighbor and lock him up in a cage even if he admits that he stole your car, but the government can lock him up in jail when he admits that. It's not that it's wrong for him to be locked up, but that it's wrong for you to assume that authority over him.

As long as there's a higher authority around to take care of the job, you must not take that power as your own. When there ceases to be a power with greater authority than you have (in that area), then it's up to you to handle the situation. In Old West movies, you often see a new sheriff struggling to assert his authority in a town. As long as there was no sheriff (or none that would assert authority), the people were expected to handle situations themselves--to exact revenge for killings or payment for theft--but when an authoritative sheriff comes on the scene, the citizens must learn to leave those tasks to the law.

On the large scale (world scene), the governments have pretty much reached the upper limits of authority. Who is there to rule the governments? Governments exercise authority over one another according to capability because there is no higher authority who will handle the situations.

I'd say that's a pretty good description of how things are at the moment. However, it doesn't address the why. does this authority have limits? Can the higher authority justify anything? That seems to reduce down to might makes right again.

Also on your last point about governments reaching the upper limits of authority, that's one of the reasons I am not anti-religion, even though I am personally agnostic. Religion offers people an appeal to authority that governments cannot touch, "Gods law trumps all the laws of man." You may consider it irrational, but I see this as a potential check on government power, and so I greet the increasing secularization of society with mixed feelings.

Architectonic

4 Mar 2006, 07:39 AM

If this were true, then it would follow that it would be almost impossible to establish a monopoly or oligopoly over the market, since it is almost impossible to provide efficient service to customers with a company that large.

Name one true monopoly/oligopoly - ie, an organization (or oligopoly) that is the only global provider of a particular product or service that has no real alternatives?
Even those monopolies/oligopolies which exist in limited markets tend to have only done so, with government influence.

There are variables such as customer loyalty, availability to customers, and simply the numerous practical advantages an older company has over an upstart (no matter how effective or efficient it is) that may prevent a better competitor from surpassing a lesser one.

The logic in that paragraph makes little sense.
Customer loyalty indicates that the customer is happy with the product/service being provided.
Numerous practical advantages/availability are inherent to the company and sector. That is to say, the cost of starting a new company to compete will already be factored in to the price.
But the costs for starting up in a competitive environment, may well be lower, than if all of the production was centrally planned by the government.

In addition to this, most customers don't actively seek a better competitor.

This is perfectly acceptable - if the customer doesn't feel the need to seek a better competitor then the customer must feel that the service/product is at least satisfactory, not worth the effort seeking a new producer.