Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!columbia!topaz!josh
From: josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Explorations of "social-interest": Back to Basics
Message-ID: <2325@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 20-Jun-85 00:27:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.2325
Posted: Thu Jun 20 00:27:56 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Jun-85 01:17:52 EDT
References: <298@spar.UUCP> <2380037@acf4.UUCP> <657@whuxl.UUCP>
Reply-To: josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall)
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 66

In article <657@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes:
>As I noted before, I really don't care about what may or may not be
>in any given individual's self-interest, nor do I consider such a
>topic an issue of politics. ...
>
>What *difference* does it make to political decisions *what* a
>particular person decides is in their self-interest?
> ...
>And then we can no longer argue about what is best for a given
>individual in one given situation and go back to the fundamental
>issue of politics- how do we improve the interests of *all*?
> 
>*That* is the fundamental question of politics!

>...it is *unjust* and *unfair* for one driver to have more privileges than
>another.  The rule of law requires laws to be applied fairly to *all*.
>The decision to adopt such rules of law is a political decision.
>Moreover it is hardly one which has been adopted in all times and places
>including our own.
>                  tim sevener   whuxl!orb

Are there two tim seveners?  If not, I will have to revise my opinion 
of the one to some degree.  The questions and positions posed here
are interesting and reasonable.

Now, into the fray.  The basic question is, what is the "interests
of all", the social good?  Is there such a thing?  If so, is it any
different from the self-interests of the individuals in the society,
perhaps weighted in some way, and summed?  If so, and this is 
essentially the utilitarian point of view, how are the self-interests
of the individuals to be reckoned--by a single universal criterion
or as judged by the people themselves?  

Since tim does not appear to feel that the self-interests of the individuals
are part of the interest of the whole, (claiming it irrelevant to
talk about them), perhaps we should seek the good of society elsewhere.
Surprisingly, I agree.  I feel that the good of society as a whole
lies in the system of morals which defines the interactions through
which individuals can seek their *own* self-interests without ruining
the prospects of others from doing likewise.  

It is of technical interest to consider which sets of rules for
ordering a society protect the health of society as a whole,
and which merely organize it to the self-interest of some of
the members (generally at the expense of the others).

It is clear that a democracy fails this test.  The individuals 
in a society will always act in their own self-interests; even 
if voting were a theoretically perfect collective decision-making
process (no such process is possible), the result would then 
merely reflect the self-interests of all the people voting
(in reality, it reflects the self-interests of the more powerful
groups).

A market-like system is at least theoretically capable of exhibiting the
behavior we would like.  In a market, the collective result is often
completely different than the (self-interested) intents of all the 
actors therein.  The competition of producers, each trying to make
as much money as possible, drives prices down.  The result of the 
market decision-making procedure is an overall allocation of 
resources and goods, efforts and rewards, that *no single individual
can even understand*.  Can the mechanisms of the market be adapted
to make the law in the same synergistic way?  I don't know, but it
couldn't do much worse than what we have now.

--JoSH