If you are an evolutionist . . .

[MaxWeiss]

No. While the free market may be the most efficient on average, it creates gaps even worse than we have now, and punishes a large portion of the population. It's at the opposite end of the spectrum from communism, neither of which can work in practice, even though they look good on paper.

Unless of course you feel it is morally acceptable to let the less efficient humans die away.

You are right that it will weed out inefficiency faster, but that is not the goal of mankind.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
No. While the free market may be the most efficient on average, it creates gaps even worse than we have now, and punishes a large portion of the population. It's at the opposite end of the spectrum from communism, neither of which can work in practice, even though they look good on paper.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are people punished?

What does "work" in practice? Wait, before you answer that, we'll need your definition of "work" so we can evaluate your claim that the two already mentioned ideas "don't work".

What "looks good on paper" about a centrally planned economy???

[ QUOTE ]
Unless of course you feel it is morally acceptable to let the less efficient humans die away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I've never seen that strawman before. Of course, there's nothing that would prevent you from helping someone you felt needed help.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless of course you feel it is morally acceptable to let the less efficient humans die away.

[/ QUOTE ]

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

"Less efficient" human beings will only exist when you inefficiently regulate behavior to allow them to exist. I could ask you if it's morally acceptable to bring a human being into a reality where his existence is a net burden, and that would be a silly question too.

[ QUOTE ]
You are right that it will weed out inefficiency faster, but that is not the goal of mankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious what "the goal of mankind" might be if not, broadly, to efficiently meet our ends. I didn't know you had the answer. Please put the spoiler in white, in case other people reading want to try to think of it on their own.

People have been philosophizing on this board for quite a while, they might not like it if the good ole college kid marches in and gives away all the answers.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, there's nothing that would prevent you from helping someone you felt needed help.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously people don't help people because they *want* to. The point of mankind is that we elect other people to stereotype situations and systematically decide who needs help. That's the way human beings help each other. I guess it would be more efficient if we didn't do that, but again, that isn't the point of mankind. Read up.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
People have been philosophizing on this board for quite a while, they might not like it if the good ole college kid marches in and gives away all the answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, funny stuff. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
"Less efficient" human beings will only exist when you inefficiently regulate behavior to allow them to exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is the "you" in this sentence? Surely something like Plato's omnipotent philosopher-kings? Or are you implying that an anthropomorphization of the free market fits equally well here?

In any case, ck's implicit premise is that the first moral responsibility of society is: protecting individual freedom. Not individual productivity or reproductive fitness or...(economic?) efficiency.

Now I agree that ck's position is open to argument, but I'm not sure you have effectively dismissed it. Because you seem to merely be special pleading a different moral obligation for society: maximizing individual efficiency.

And although I prefer your position, I admit I don't see any objective reason for choosing it. Psychological precedent suggests that people care little about personal efficiency if it comes at the expense of their freedom to be inefficient...

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Now I agree that ck's position is open to argument, but I'm not sure you have effectively dismissed it. Because you seem to merely be special pleading a different moral obligation for society: maximizing individual efficiency.

And although I prefer your position, I admit I don't see any objective reason for choosing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I basically agree. CK, at least the way I read it, seemed to be implying that there WAS something objectively wrong with our side. I was just trying to say that there wasn't, and that we could view his side as morally inferior if we wanted to.

I mean, letting people die before your eyes (think: person about to fall of cliff but you can catch him if you want) can be argued to be a good thing since it too helps eliminate some inferior trait (and by saving him you will allow his burden to breath). But saving him is so clearly right because it feels right, and I know I'll feel horrible if I don't. So I have to save him, and will subsequently feel happy and proud to mark and reinforce the decision.

So I think helping others survive is probably more good than bad in some ways, and probably more bad than good in others. Some traits certainly should die. It's just that natural human bias keeps us from ever being able to act in that way, so the admission is unpleasant.

To whatever extent we can ever know what is "objectively good," eliminating burden sure seems to be it to me. But since I know that because of our natural bias we can never *act* in a way that's "objectively" best, I think the whole thing becomes pretty grey.

But basically I just don't see why centralized empathy could ever be the best way to determine the best action. It will tend to lead to inefficient decisions.

It evolves us in a way that we become pets, caged by our own ideas. We've conquered the planet, now we just need to get mass co-existence down a little better.

[DMACM]

I believe I evolved to live in a small hunter gatherer band. Those could be organized without a government but our society cant. Its become too large and complex with too many people. Technology has driven this trend and prevents its reversal. If you think anarchy would be a good thing you are incredibly naive.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
But since I know that because of our natural bias we can never *act* in a way that's "objectively" best, I think the whole thing becomes pretty grey.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well put. There's such inexplicable divergence between our "good judgment" and our actual behavior...maybe no conclusion can be meaningfully defended until we have a better science of psychology.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
The point of mankind is that we elect other people to stereotype situations and systematically decide who needs help. That's the way human beings help each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the complete opposite of the majority of the history of mankind. In fact, its the opposite of the majority of help that people give to other people right now. Individual volunteers and individual donations efforts and individual acts of kindness dwarf government programs in terms of effectiveness (not per dollar effectiveness but total effectiveness). In fact coercively funded operations usually harm those that they are intended to help.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point of mankind is that we elect other people to stereotype situations and systematically decide who needs help. That's the way human beings help each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the complete opposite of the majority of the history of mankind. In fact, its the opposite of the majority of help that people give to other people right now. Individual volunteers and individual donations efforts and individual acts of kindness dwarf government programs in terms of effectiveness (not per dollar effectiveness but total effectiveness). In fact coercively funded operations usually harm those that they are intended to help.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, I was being sarcastic (in reference to CK's bold assertion above).

Hahah.