07 Dec 08
Originally posted by kmax87But the cops always get the confession!
Do all these models reject the notion of honor amongst thieves? Someone did mention that many people caught up in this dilemma are likely to have to continue living amongst the people they would have potentially "shopped". You would think the fear of reprisal would help people stay silent.
The other thing must be that would be felons obviously don't watch ...[text shortened]... nothing, and that the cops almost never have enough evidence to convict without a confession.
08 Dec 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI don't see how the PD applies to current guvamint or to a guvamint that doesn't meddle in my health care, I've asked numerous times for an answer, even prior to starting this thread but just get evasion every time, you're tedious.
What alternative to government do you suggest for avoiding the PD?
08 Dec 08
Originally posted by BartsIt shows that dobbing in your mate will get you a light sentence, and it only shows that if the numbers of the game are set up that way. The numbers and criteria can be altered to show any damn thing you please.
Isn't the relevance of the PD obvious to you ? It shows that by forcing people to take a certain option (cooperate) that they themselves wouldn't take, they are better off.
What you're saying here is that people don't know what's good for them.
Right?
..but there are other people who do know what's good for them.
Right?
These other people have some higher qualification than me for placing a claim on, and running, my life for me.
Right?
Do you see yourself as one of these superior people?
08 Dec 08
Originally posted by WajomaCould we ever know the answer to this "truth".
What you're saying here is that people don't know what's good for them.
Right?
..but there are other people who do know what's good for them.
Right?
I mean would you like to drive around in a city where there were no traffic lights and you were at the mercy of whether people followed any form of consistent driving code or whether they would be responsible to stay sober behind the wheel etc. Would you want to experiment with that to know for sure?
Should anyone be allowed to call themselves qualified in any particular field of specialist expertise and should people have to find out by being bitten once before they knew who was competent or not?
But hey people know whats good for them don't they? Obviously the increased incidence of obesity and type II diabetes in younger and younger ages of citizens is nothing more than propaganda on the part of centralized governments who are doing everything in their power to sustain the "myth" of widespread ignorance and incompetence amongst the masses in order to justify their interference and "theft" of your hard earned buck no doubt.🙄😲🙄
You don't like affirmative action because it would apparently promote incompetence over merit, and yet in your mythical society of everyone knowing what was good for them anyone could do anything cause they obviously wouldn't get out of their depth and try and do things outside of their field of expertise. No wurries on that you say, cause they'll be outed for their incompetence soon enough. Who cares if a few people get squeezed or maimed by a few irresponsible folk among these self actualized self aware paragons of civic virtue and mutual cooperation.
Oh yes I forgot, the notion that people may be slightly imperfect and be subject to selfish motives and thus require some form of impartial oversight is nothing more than emotional baggage, a hangover of guilt that is nothing more than a legacy of Christian values that has been used by the establishment to shackle good honest folk in chains.🙄
08 Dec 08
Originally posted by WajomaYes, the parameters can be changed and give a different outcome. That doesn't change the fundamental fact that parameters exist where everyone acting in his own best interest actually gives them a sub-optimal outcome, both on the level of the individual as on the level of the collective. It isn't any surprise that you try to downplay this, as it runs counter you extremely liberalist philosophy that more freedom is always better.
It shows that dobbing in your mate will get you a light sentence, and it only shows that if the numbers of the game are set up that way. The numbers and criteria can be altered to show any damn thing you please.
What you're saying here is that people don't know what's good for them.
Right?
..but there are other people who do know what's good for the ...[text shortened]... d running, my life for me.
Right?
Do you see yourself as one of these superior people?
What you're saying here is that people don't know what's good for them.
You haven't been paying attention, what I am saying is that everyone knows what's good for him and by all doing the that, everyone is worse off.
..but there are other people who do know what's good for them.
No I'm saying that by cooperating, people are able to achieve more. Because of effects like the free rider problem, it's sometimes hard to achieve that cooperation.
These other people have some higher qualification than me for placing a claim on, and running, my life for me.
If I'm not mistaken you're a New-Zealander, so the people who would be making that kind of decisions are democratically chosen representatives. This means you and you countrymen have had a chance to see if they are qualified and then given them the power to run a part of your lives.
Do you see yourself as one of these superior people?
Ooooooh, implying I'm some kind of dictator-wannabe, classy
09 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by BartsParameters exist where everyone acting in his own best interest actually gives a sub optimal outcome. (Edit: disregarding the contradiction of that statement)
Yes, the parameters can be changed and give a different outcome. That doesn't change the fundamental fact that parameters exist where everyone acting in his own best interest actually gives them a sub-optimal outcome, both on the level of the individual as on the level of the collective. It isn't any surprise that you try to downplay this, as it runs counter y e superior people?
Ooooooh, implying I'm some kind of dictator-wannabe, classy[/b]
I agree, but;
Parameters also exist where everyone acting in his own best interest actually gives the optimal outcome.
Therefore using the PD with certain parameters as an excuse for forcing your ideals on your fellow man is as bogus as using the PD with another set of parameters as a claim to freedom.
"You haven't been paying attention, what I am saying is that everyone knows what's good for him and by all doing the that, everyone is worse off."
Don't you see, you keep repeating the same paradox. They know what's best for them, yet they don't.
I'm not implying you're a dictator wannabe, that requires nous and balls, you prefer the anonymity of the mob.
09 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaParameters also exist where everyone acting in his own best interest actually gives the optimal outcome.
Parameters exist where everyone acting in his own best interest actually gives a sub optimal outcome. (Edit: disregarding the contradiction of that statement)
I agree, but;
Parameters also exist where everyone acting in his own best interest actually gives the optimal outcome.
Therefore using the PD with certain parameters as an excuse for forcing y a dictator wannabe, that requires nous and balls, you prefer the anonymity of the mob.
Indeed. So for these situations (this applies for private goods in a transparent market), government regulation is only required to enforce the transparency; i.e. governments "only" have to construct and enforce laws to prevent exploitation, misleading, cartels and fraud, which occur naturally in the free market.
For situations where the parameters lead to a suboptimal outcome, government is required to stop people from defecting. This applies to all collective goods: army, police, energy, health care, education, social security, etc.
Don't you see, you keep repeating the same paradox. They know what's best for them, yet they don't.
The key point is that people know that cooperation leads to the best result for all, yet they are better off individually if they defect.
09 Dec 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHow do you define a collective good?
[b]Parameters also exist where everyone acting in his own best interest actually gives the optimal outcome.
Indeed. So for these situations (this applies for private goods in a transparent market), government regulation is only required to enforce the transparency; i.e. governments "only" have to construct and enforce laws to prevent exploitation ...[text shortened]... tion leads to the best result for all, yet they are better off individually if they defect.[/b]
In your opinion, why are the decisions of government officials, politicians, etc. not subject to the dilemma?
09 Dec 08
Originally posted by WajomaI'm highlighting this to print screen and save as, cause in all my debate time I think this may very well be,albeit marginally so, the very first occasion in debates of Wajoma actually acknowledging the possibility of an alternate view to that of his stated position as actually having any merit. I'll be saving it into my special Moments I will cherish Folder
Parameters exist where everyone acting in his own best interest actually gives a sub optimal outcome. (Edit: disregarding the contradiction of that statement)
I agree, but;
10 Dec 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSometimes it's only a small group of individuals who contribute most of the damage that makes it necessary to compel people to behave prosocially or face the consequences. That's the case with speed limits, for instance; some people are capable of choosing for themselves what speed is safe to drive at, but others are not, and so everyone needs to be penalised with speed limits as a result. It's unfortunate, but the greater cost is in letting a small group of troublemakers drive as fast as they want, thus causing a huge amount of harm.
Haha, okay. The prisoner's dilemma implies that rational people will make decisions that are not in the best interests of the collective, and also do not provide the ideal outcome for the individual.
10 Dec 08
Originally posted by WajomaThe government shouldn't intervene to protect someone from themselves (except possibly in the most extreme cases, like suicide in the absence of a terminal illness); but that's not what taxation is about. It's about protecting the rest of society from the fact that a subgroup of people would just get rich and not contribute to the welfare of society unless they were compelled to do so. Some rich people (e.g. Bill and Melinda Gates) do contribute to charity and helping the poor, but others do not. Without some govt involvement, only nice people will help others and selfish people will have the "freedom" to not lift a finger to help others.
It shows that dobbing in your mate will get you a light sentence, and it only shows that if the numbers of the game are set up that way. The numbers and criteria can be altered to show any damn thing you please.
What you're saying here is that people don't know what's good for them.
Right?
..but there are other people who do know what's good for the ...[text shortened]... d running, my life for me.
Right?
Do you see yourself as one of these superior people?
10 Dec 08
Originally posted by PalynkaHow do you define a collective good?
How do you define a collective good?
In your opinion, why are the decisions of government officials, politicians, etc. not subject to the dilemma?
Anything that's consumed collectively.
In your opinion, why are the decisions of government officials, politicians, etc. not subject to the dilemma?
They don't have a personal financial interest in taking decisions. Unless they are corrupt, of course, which is why checks and balances are needed in government as well as in the free market.
10 Dec 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraFood is consumed 'collectively' and look at the abundance, variety and value for money available there.
[b]How do you define a collective good?
Anything that's consumed collectively.
In your opinion, why are the decisions of government officials, politicians, etc. not subject to the dilemma?
They don't have a personal financial interest in taking decisions. Unless they are corrupt, of course, which is why checks and balances are needed in government as well as in the free market.[/b]
If only health care were as free market as food. (which could be cheaper with less guvamint meddling)
10 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHealth care or education need not be 'consumed' (emphasis here) collectively. Are you thinking of a collective good as a public good (i.e. non-rivalrous and non-excludable to a certain degree)? It seems to me you're focusing on the non-rivalry property, but I just want to be precise here.
[b]How do you define a collective good?
Anything that's consumed collectively.
In your opinion, why are the decisions of government officials, politicians, etc. not subject to the dilemma?
They don't have a personal financial interest in taking decisions. Unless they are corrupt, of course, which is why checks and balances are needed in government as well as in the free market.[/b]
They don't have a personal financial interest in taking decisions.
The dilemma is not restricted to personal financial interest. If a politician cares about being re-elected, then a populist agenda may be the lose-lose outcome.