Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site teddy.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!teddy!lkk From: lkk@teddy.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Individual as a Mythical Beast Message-ID: <1886@teddy.UUCP> Date: Sun, 5-Jan-86 22:43:25 EST Article-I.D.: teddy.1886 Posted: Sun Jan 5 22:43:25 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 6-Jan-86 20:47:07 EST References: <28200505@inmet.UUCP> Reply-To: lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) Organization: GenRad, Inc., Concord, Mass. Lines: 97 Summary: In article <28200505@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > >[Larry Kolodney (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa] >[criticising Radford Neal's solution for Free Rider problem] >>How many people do you know who are rational? This is a major flaw in >>libertarian thinking, assuming rational agents. ... > >>The biggest flaw in libertarian thinking is, however, the notion that >>people are independent free agents. ... >>In practice, it doesn't come close to modeling real societies >>(except perhaps the "society" of net.land, which might explain >>the high number of libertarians around.) > >The assumptions are indeed made, and they are indeed less than >factually true. But this does not necessarily make them flawed. >Very similar (perhaps identical) assumptions are needed to justi- >fy *democracy*. The assumption of rational actors works (to some extent) in the case of elections because: 1. They only occur once a year or so, they don't require too much effort. 2. They (generally) involve a determination of the general direction of government, rather than decisions about specific complex issues. Thus, elections generally don't involve rational decisions, the involve emotional decisions. They tell the government (via the candidates elected), what the electorate FEELS it wants. This provides good negative feedback. If a government is not making the electoral feel good, the electorate votes it out. Thus, we have a safeguard against tyranny and (theoretically) bad administration. But ask anyone who has worked on an electoral campaign, (or even better, campaign commercials) if they think the electorate is rational, and they'll laugh in your face. Now the case of deciding on specific courses of action, like building a dam, is quite a different thing. Dams affect many people, some positively, some negatively. They also affect the environment, sometimes positively, sometimes negatively. Deciding whether to build the dam or not is a very complex issue. Most people have a lot better things to do with their time than study environmental impact statements and the like. So they pay people to do it for them. These are called government administrators and legislators. BUT, once they have accepted the realization that other people are in a better position to make the decision (by way of training and depth of involvement) , it behooves them to accept the decision (or vote out the bastard...), otherwise, the decisionmaker is wasting his time. Think of government as binding arbitration. > >>(except perhaps the "society" of net.land, which might explain >>the high number of libertarians around.) > >A nice conjecture, for all I know it may be true. If all >humankind needs is to become as rational and independent as >the marginal netter, can things be quite hopeless ? God forbid. What humankind needs has little to do with rationality (in the sense that you mean it). Rationality only works with the correct premises. The current state of affairs (at least in the USA) is that people start out with the premise that they are independant free agents (i.e. they can somehow exist and live a happy life independently from any arbitrary part of the rest of the world, that they are distinct from the world), whose place in the world is to maximize their utility by making as much *money* as possible, the rest of the world be damned. This attitude survives easily on USENET because it is (more) acceptable in the artificial world of electronic communication, where, for the most part, the inhabitants of this "world" are not "of it" (i.e. aren't administrators so don't actual have to worry about the future of the "world", don't suffer any serious consequences if problems occur). This "world" really does seem to exist apart from each of us, its "out there somewhere". But if you check out recent discussions in net.news, you see that even here in netland, people's self-centered just-try-and-stop-me attitude threatens the very existence of the net. > Jan Wasilewsky -- Sport Death, (USENET) ...{decvax | ihnp4!mit-eddie}!genrad!panda!lkk Larry Kolodney (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa -------- Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing. - Helen Keller