does ACism require "strategic thinking?"

[Metric]

Anyone can be a socialist -- all it requires is a kind of vague desire for some sort of "big brother" security. The desire for security on some level is as close to universal as you can get, so it's not surprising that socialism is attractive to a lot of people by default.

On the other hand, something else seems to be required to buy into ACism. Whatever it is, it appears that poker players have it more often than just about any other group of people. It's certainly not a desire for security and a low-stress environment. I suppose I'll postulate that it's somehow related to "strategic thinking" and a confidence that over the long term, correct strategy is far, far more important and valuable than short-term losses, which are viewed as inevitable but certainly acknowledge to be painful at times.

If I am moving in the right direction with this thought, I have to wonder the following: What fraction of a society is capable of this kind of thought? I don't think it can ever be a majority, except in somewhat artificial situations where the world's ACists all move to an island and creat "ACland" or the like. Certainly it seems unlikely to me that "strategic thinkers" will ever naturally outnumber "security wanters."

Is this just self-serving speculation on my part, or do you think this line of thought has genuine consequences for the future of ACism?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
The desire for security on some level is as close to universal as you can get, so it's not surprising that socialism is attractive to a lot of people by default.

[/ QUOTE ]

Security is desirable to individuals with high time preferences. Notice how the poor are far more easily conned into supporting totalitarianism than the wealthy.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone can be a socialist -- all it requires is a kind of vague desire for some sort of "big brother" security. The desire for security on some level is as close to universal as you can get, so it's not surprising that socialism is attractive to a lot of people by default.

On the other hand, something else seems to be required to buy into ACism. Whatever it is, it appears that poker players have it more often than just about any other group of people. It's certainly not a desire for security and a low-stress environment. I suppose I'll postulate that it's somehow related to "strategic thinking" and a confidence that over the long term, correct strategy is far, far more important and valuable than short-term losses, which are viewed as inevitable but certainly acknowledge to be painful at times.

If I am moving in the right direction with this thought, I have to wonder the following: What fraction of a society is capable of this kind of thought? I don't think it can ever be a majority, except in somewhat artificial situations where the world's ACists all move to an island and creat "ACland" or the like. Certainly it seems unlikely to me that "strategic thinkers" will ever naturally outnumber "security wanters."

Is this just self-serving speculation on my part, or do you think this line of thought has genuine consequences for the future of ACism?

[/ QUOTE ]

The vast majority of people do not need to understand the working of electricity to benefit from it, nor do they need to particularly understand the workings of the market to benefit from it. The small proportion of the population who are the best "strategic thinkers" as you put it will probably make good entrepreneurs.

All that society really needs for AC to work is a widespread respect for other people's [censored].

[Metric]

I agree that people don't need to understand the market to benefit from it -- however, those same people may look at the wealth it has created and say "Wow -- if only we could redistribute all this wealth to the poor!" and vote for it to happen (rather than to let wealth generate more wealth, which would do more to improve the society over the long-term).

So it bothers me to some extent that ACism may be unstable due to the relatively small number of "strategic thinkers" in a society.

[Borodog]

How are they going to vote for anything if few people believe in the government Tooth Fairy?

[latefordinner]

Post deleted by RR

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that people don't need to understand the market to benefit from it -- however, those same people may look at the wealth it has created and say "Wow -- if only we could redistribute all this wealth to the poor!" and vote for it to happen (rather than to let wealth generate more wealth, which would do more to improve the society over the long-term).

So it bothers me to some extent that ACism may be unstable due to the relatively small number of "strategic thinkers" in a society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strategic thinking is a plus, but it really isn't necessary. In Southern American hick towns, libertarian values are prevalent and the people are just as stupid as the Bolsheviks. "Hey you! Git off mah property before I blow your cotton-pickin' head off!" "That there's my sister; anyone gonna have sex with her it's gonna be me!"

However, absolutely no more than this is necessary for capitalism to work. Look at the black market. Ever dealt with a drug dealer? They're morons. They are incredibly unreliable and often have no comprehension of the product they're selling (I'd say about 80% of pot dealers don't even know whether their weed is an indica or a sativa.) No one in the black market can coordinate large, hierachical structures. In fact, almost no one ever knows the whole chain from production to consumption. Weed will usually pass through four or five middle men before it gets to your bowl, and no one really knows who all these middle men are; they just know who they get it from, and who they give it to. The ONLY thing that these morons understand is property. Weed is restricted in supply, and money must be exchanged for it. Poor business dealings will result in terminated connections.

And that's all that's necessary to deliver a completely illegal product to pretty much any town in America. There is no planning or even any comprehension of the distributive structure. It just happens.

[latefordinner]

I dunno, maybe your average dealer that unloads a couple ounces a week to smoke for free isn't very sophisticated, but nearly every large dealer I've met has business practices that rival any legit business. Ledger books, contact lists, distribution schedules, etc. This is especially true in areas where drug dealing is in the grey market - say NYC where you can dialup to get drugs delivered - most of those shops have dispatchers, schedules, some have branding and logos, etc.

Not really relevant to the point of this thread, but interesting all the same [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Metric]

I tried to define this earlier. "Strategic thinking" means valuing of long-term strategy over short-term security.

E.G. redistributing all wealth evenly in 1900 might have been great for the poor people in 1900 -- but the consequences would suck for everyone (including the poor) as of 2007. Recognition of this is a form of strategic thought.

Surely we all understand that maximizing long-term EV may involve increased short-term risk/stress.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
by "strategic thinkers" you mean "drank the koolaid and swallowed the assumptions of neoclassical economics as scientific law" right?

[/ QUOTE ]

We have a word for this that we are not allowed to invoke. Please play nicely with others.