zeke5123
2yr ago
I’d be open to a return to that as well. Landowning with kids might be my ideal
zeke5123
2yr ago
I do wonder if Stacey Abrams consent decree could fit into this rubric somehow.
zeke5123
2yr ago
There is no defect here. Classically, defect means there is a lower aggregate payout whereas cooperation means there is a large payout. Here, if everyone defects you get the same payout suggesting defect isnt really defect.
Instead the question here is what option creates the highest EV. I suspect it is red.
zeke5123
2yr ago
If the EV of red is higher than the EV of blue what is the moral theory blue is the moral choice?
zeke5123
2yr ago
Which is an argument against universal suffrage. And indeed, most people are against universal suffrage (10 year olds often don’t get to vote).
Of course there are no perfect solutions.
zeke5123
2yr ago
And I hate your kind of turnabout. You introduced the knowledge and ability to influence others into the scenario in order to “get” to your preferred outcome. If we can do that, then we can very easily influence the 3 year old to take the red candy. I have kids. It isn’t hard to convince the kid to take the red pill in this example. In fact, I think you’d be really irresponsible to get the kid to take the blue pill hoping you could get enough other people to pick blue. I know I would do everything in my power to get my kids to take red even if it meant going from sufficient blue to insufficient blue because I would not risk my kids dying.
zeke5123
2yr ago
Right wing philosophy is “the individual is the agent and is responsible for himself which enables communities.” Left wing philosophy is that “the agent is society so it is only when the community acting together changes can there be change.”
Practically, I think that ends up with right leaning people being community focused (ie my actions damage or benefit my community) whereas left leaning people being more individually focused (ie my actions are immaterial to my communities outcome and therefore I will do what benefits me but say loudly what I think the community needs to do in order to change).
zeke5123
2yr ago
I do wonder if they made the colors the yellow pill and the orange pill if the outcome is different. By using blue and red along with the blue pill that at a cursory level appeals to communitarian values the thought experiment is stacking the deck to get unrealistic answers.
zeke5123
2yr ago
No there isn’t a way of you (the sole voter for your choice) guaranteeing everyone lives. If you vote blue you may die. If you vote red someone else may die. The only way to make sure is if enough people vote the same way but once you can allow for cooperation you tell everyone “if we all vote red no one does so just vote red.”
zeke5123
2yr ago
Hey, I want you to do this scheme.
Option A — Scheme is implemented illegally.
Option B — Scheme is implemented illegally.
So clearly unless someone says “do Option B” they mean “do Option A.”
If Trump had said “I want you to organize a special election to provide a different slate but first pass a law saying we are changing how the slate is chosen and the governor must sign it, and then conditional on that passage here is our slate” presumably you would say that was legal.
But because he cut to the end goal without specifying the steps you think it is…damning? You are intuiting Option A when B could be just as viable.
There is also a big mens rea issue here
zeke5123
2yr ago
But it goes to downside; not just levels of cooperation. Sure 95% surviving is worse than 100%. But 95% is much better than 55% surviving.
zeke5123
2yr ago
It is a funny thing. Leftism preaches community but practices individualism. The right preaches individualism but practices community.
zeke5123
2yr ago
As with everything, kids are different and require a different kind of political thinking compared to adults.
zeke5123
2yr ago
Can I be in both camps? I think the obstruction charge is legit. The other charges seem crazy to me (caveating I haven’t read Georgia so who knows).
At the same time, if Trump received the Hillary standard the obstruction charge wouldn’t have been brought. I wish both would share the same cell…
zeke5123
2yr ago
Or maybe it is correlated with high IQ and there are plenty of people who posture as smart but are actually imbeciles?
zeke5123
2yr ago
Novel theory that will only be used once against hated political figure smells of contouring to try to get a particular person. Once you are trying to get a person it means your arguments likely aren’t as strong.
zeke5123
2yr ago
But that’s the thing — it is a pretty strong consensus that what Trump said was not incitement. So if you lower the standard for Trump don’t you need to lower it for democrats? As mentioned Kamala raised bail funds for the BLM folks.
zeke5123
2yr ago
Re fairness, how don’t you end up with the conclusion in Harrison Bergeron? That is, if fairness is the primary concern then we need to uglify beautiful people, slow down athletic people, dumb down smart people, de-charm charming people, etc.
If we think this is wrong (because it leads to an ugly world) do you really value fairness? Or do you value fairness as but one of many competing values?
zeke5123
2yr ago
I would add that many people look at productivity statically. Maybe the bosses boss worked his ass off for thirty years and now makes strategic decisions but need not work the same grueling hours (ie he put his dues in and is being paid on the back half).
Dangling that carrot is a great incentive to get people to work their ads when young as well.
zeke5123
2yr ago
Let’s assume you are right. Let’s assume management offers very little value but sucks up a bunch of the profit. Couldn’t you and the workers get together and do LBO? Presumably, the excess profit you retain can at minimum pay down debt costs until that has been paid back.
There are numerous companies of varying sizes. Yet we don’t really see this in the US (outside of management but outs of the shareholders). It suggests perhaps there is not as much productive leakage as you imagine.
zeke5123
2yr ago
In theory, yes officers of a corporation are required to maximize shareholder value. In practice, there is very much a P-A problem. This is confounded by the fact that the business judgement rule gives corporations wide latitude to make decisions (eg donate to charity x) because the corporation can claim “reputation benefit that in the long-run is beneficial.”
Now that wouldn’t be such a bad thing if there was an easy way to punish officers who clearly prioritize other things (eg political cache) over profits. If there is value to unlock, activist investors can swoop in, fire the relevant officers, and make money once the share price reflects those efforts.
Sadly, Marty Lipton spent decades eroding the ability for hostile takeovers making it much harder for activists to control wayward corporate officers.
zeke5123
2yr ago
It is similar to Jack Smith. He invented a novel legal theory that will only be used against Trump (even though it could be used against many prominent DC politicians) which proves the theory is bullshit.
The EV of enough people picking blue is higher than red. It is far from obvious ex ante that the EV of blue is higher.
More options
Context Copy link