Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: What is "capitalism"? (Explorations of "self-interest")
Message-ID: <253@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Jun-85 18:53:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.253
Posted: Mon Jun 17 18:53:51 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Jun-85 07:27:53 EDT
References: <298@spar.UUCP> <2380030@acf4.UUCP>
Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 17

In article <2380030@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes:
>X may not know what is best for him/herself.  But if X does not indeed know,
>then on what basis could X make a decision to trust the decision to Y & Z?

Your question makes me think that you are oversimplifying the case by
assuming that X either knows completely what is best for himself or
does not know at all.  But suppose he keeps a mental record of the cases
in which both Y and Z have disagreed with X, recommending that he take
a different course of action from the one he wound up taking.  He notices
that Y and Z have been right much more often than not.  So, why isn't
it perfectly rational for X to trust future decisions to the majority rule
of himself and Y and Z?  Consider an analogy of investing.  A lot of
people, myself included, can do better by trusting our decisions to a
mutual fund than we would do by using our own judgement.  Even if the
mutual fund does not allow one to withdraw one's money free of penalty
when one disagrees with its strategy, it still might be a rational
investment, no?