Democratic Presidential Primaries 2008

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by jammies

What does it equal then? Are you saying that a group of hunters where the hunters are selfish magically get more prey than a group where they aren't selfish? How exactly does that work? Are the prey sensitive to attitude somehow?

I'm saying if they are all making decisions based on what helps them the most. Very rarely is all ten working in unison the best case scenario for all ten.

Maybe there are three big strong male hunters that know how to bring down big game. They'll branch off on their own. A fourth fat lazy guy eats whatever they leave behind. There's also three small women who are content to trap rabbits and eat berries. Two people are tall and slight, and can go fishing. And so on.

Now, if a wicked cold strike happens and only the fishers are getting food, they can barter for assets from the other hunters (labour for building a home, for instance).


The tie-in to our current conversation is that they are collectively better off deciding this on their own then having it mandated by a central planner that all ten must work together and all starve when the cold snap hits.

Originally Posted by jammies

Selfishness does not promote cohesive group tactics.

I assume you work for a company. I also assume that the company has their own best interest at heart when they hired you, and you had your best interest when you took the job.
I also assume you both used this phenomenon for mutual advantage.

Originally Posted by jammies

Imagine an army where every soldier hung back and let the other guy take all the risks - except there would BE no other guy, and they would all get their asses kicked.

ENLIGHTENED self interest has worked well for many armies for many centuries. Other than the clones vs. robots of Star Wars II, it's always relevant.

Originally Posted by jammies

The idea that selfishness - or any other behaviour - is always appropriate is a great flaw in any ideology that purports such an idea to be true.

Always appropriate - No. But you're suggesting a level of selfishness akin to a reality show or other zero-sum scenario.



You're a bright guy jammies, I know that from previous posts. I highly doubt you don't understand the basic concepts of Adam Smith.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by jammies

Modern times are undoubtedly the era in which by far more people live singly than ever have, and even now the majority of people live in and work for their families, not strictly themselves.

That's part of my argument. People are inherently good. If I'm starving and you're eating, you will share your food with me out of your own selfish interest of being a good person. Selfish does not equal evil.

Originally Posted by jammies

Economics is merely one part of a society's fabric, not all of it. Basing the entirety of a civilization's functions on economics is no more likely to succeed in the long term than basing it on the military. Or on the State. Not everything can be reduced down to questions of economics, and the idea that it can be was originally Marxist, which is ironic considering it is a favorite argument of those who violently reject Marxism in favor of unfettered capitalism.

Ask me a question regarding any element of society, I will answer it, and effort to tie my explanation to enlightened self-interest.

[MarchHare]

ENLIGHTENED self interest has worked well for many armies for many centuries. Other than the clones vs. robots of Star Wars II, it's always relevant.

Do you have any specific examples of this? Because that kind of attitude runs completely opposite to my military experience.

When I served with the Canadian forces, we were told pretty much from the very first day of basic training that an individual is essentially worthless and success can only be achieved through teamwork. In fact, many of the exercises in boot camp were designed to hammer this point home. For example, we would have room inspections shortly after breakfast each morning. A few times we returned from the mess hall and discovered that the trainers had been into our quarters and completely tore our bedding apart, throwing sheets, blankets, and even mattresses all over the room -- with inspection looming in five minutes or so. If each man tried frantically to reassemble only his own bed (self-interest), it was impossible to complete the task in time to and nobody passed inspection. On the other hand, if the group worked together for the common interest and everyone assisted each other, the quarters could be returned to their immaculate state before the reviewing officer arrived.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Do you have any specific examples of this? Because that kind of attitude runs completely opposite to my military experience.

When I served with the Canadian forces, we were told pretty much from the very first day of basic training that an individual is essentially worthless and success can only be achieved through teamwork. In fact, many of the exercises in boot camp were designed to hammer this point home. For example, we would have room inspections shortly after breakfast each morning. A few times we returned from the mess hall and discovered that the trainers had been into our quarters and completely tore our bedding apart, throwing sheets, blankets, and even mattresses all over the room -- with inspection looming in five minutes or so. If each man tried frantically to reassemble only his own bed (self-interest), it was impossible to complete the task in time to and nobody passed inspection. On the other hand, if the group worked together for the common interest and everyone assisted each other, the quarters could be returned to their immaculate state before the reviewing officer arrived.

Yeah, I agree with you to a large extent. However, I also think you have to take into account the intense rewarding nature of tribalism, as well as the bonds that form between individual soldiers that lead to cases of extreme social altruism.

So, I do not think the model of reciprocal or enlightened self-interest holds up in cases such as these.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Do you have any specific examples of this? Because that kind of attitude runs completely opposite to my military experience.

When I served with the Canadian forces, we were told pretty much from the very first day of basic training that an individual is essentially worthless and success can only be achieved through teamwork. In fact, many of the exercises in boot camp were designed to hammer this point home. For example, we would have room inspections shortly after breakfast each morning. A few times we returned from the mess hall and discovered that the trainers had been into our quarters and completely tore our bedding apart, throwing sheets, blankets, and even mattresses all over the room -- with inspection looming in five minutes or so. If each man tried frantically to reassemble only his own bed (self-interest), it was impossible to complete the task in time to and nobody passed inspection. On the other hand, if the group worked together for the common interest and everyone assisted each other, the quarters could be returned to their immaculate state before the reviewing officer arrived.

I'm not communicating well then, because this is a great example of what I'm referring to.

As an aside, I thank you for your service.


You and your bunkmate return to your quarter and see that your beds are both mussed. Inspection is in five minutes. You both know it takes six minutes to make your bed alone. You also know that together, it takes two minutes.
You and your bunkmate can work together to achieve both of your goals, and you and your bunkmate can identify that and act accordingly. You and your bunkmate working together IS SERVING your own self-interest, these do not have to contradict.

You seem to be describing a scenario such as the this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
where if you each act out of fear/suspicion/ignorance you will both lose. I don't know why you are arguing this is the common sense result.

The army is doing that drill to teach you exactly what I am arguing, it is in your best interest to work together.

[Gozer]

The broader point is that you deciding on your own is better than "them" deciding for you.

If the army had a rule that you always have to work alone, you will fail the bed-not-made scenario.

If the army had a rule that you always had to work together, brushing teeth and evacuating the bowels would be needlessly awful.

If they teach you how to work together, and how to recognize/decide when to work together (virtually every combat scenario) then THEY EMPOWER YOU TO BENEFIT EVERYONE.

[MarchHare]

I'm not communicating well then, because this is a great example of what I'm referring to.

Yeah, I guess I'm really not understanding what you mean by enlightened self-interest.

I don't see too much of a difference between my boot camp experience and a modern social democracy (which you seem to oppose). Take universal healthcare, for example. In the same sense that no individual recruit can re-assemble his bed in time for inspection, most Canadians (aside from the very wealthy) can afford to pay for cancer treatments (as an example) should the need arise. But, just like recruits helping each other to achieve team success, taxpayers can pool their resources into a universal, single-payer system that provides affordable care to every citizen. That, to me, is both enlightened self-interest and serving the common good of society. Yes, some people would be better served without having to pay into the system, but I contend they are a small minority. Since I'm still relatively young, I've paid more into the healthcare system than I've derived in medical serviced, but as I age and my health inevitably declines, I will see a greater return on my tax dollars -- and you will too.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Yeah, I guess I'm really not understanding what you mean by enlightened self-interest.

Perhaps someone else can explain better than I.

If you have time to burn, I got a lot out of that wikipedia link for the Prisoners dilemma.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Yeah, I guess I'm really not understanding what you mean by enlightened self-interest.

I don't see too much of a difference between my boot camp experience and a modern social democracy (which you seem to oppose). Take universal healthcare, for example. In the same sense that no individual recruit can re-assemble his bed in time for inspection, most Canadians (aside from the very wealthy) can afford to pay for cancer treatments (as an example) should the need arise. But, just like recruits helping each other to achieve team success, taxpayers can pool their resources into a universal, single-payer system that provides affordable care to every citizen. That, to me, is both enlightened self-interest and serving the common good of society. Yes, some people would be better served without having to pay into the system, but I contend they are a small minority. Since I'm still relatively young, I've paid more into the healthcare system than I've derived in medical serviced, but as I age and my health inevitably declines, I will see a greater return on my tax dollars -- and you will too.

Big difference is that most military forces around in the Western world are volunteer-based or in the case of severe national emergency, conscription. Are you suggesting that mass-mobilization of a large and diverse society is necessary or even possible?

Granted, that has worked somewhat in the Scandinavian countries, but they have static, almost uniform populations. They have also gone increasingly in a private direction to handle many complicated policy problems, such as environmental stewardship. Furthermore, these systems gain increasing problems in the face of the outside immigration which doesn't share the culture values of the country.

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

taxpayers can pool their resources into a universal, single-payer system that provides affordable care to every citizen. That, to me, is both enlightened self-interest and serving the common good of society.

Taxpayers can pool their resources, but the main difference is that they have to pool their resources whether they want to or not, and a lot of self-interests end up being dictated by others.