> Self-service is the antithesis of accountability to collective trust
Complex society is a potent counterargument to this hypothesis. Systems that rely on good people to work are fundamentally flawed. Instead, the game has to be about aligning self interets in favour of the collective.
> Complex society is a potent counterargument to this hypothesis.
Complex society is the demonstration of that hypothesis. Misaligned incentives are widespread and corruption and inefficiency are the result.
> Systems that rely on good people to work are fundamentally flawed. Instead, the game has to be about aligning self interets in favour of the collective.
But now you're making a different argument.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" works by random chance. When Evil Corp pays off Candidate A and Pollution Inc pays off Candidate B and then it's Candidate B who gets in and retaliates against Evil Corp for backing the wrong horse, you're getting a good result by chance rather than by design. All it would have taken was for Candidate A to make a better prediction about whether they need to bend the knee to Pollution Inc too in order to win and the same system produces something even worse.
How to actually get their incentives to align is an extremely unsolved problem. The best method we know if is to subject them to competition, e.g. break up concentrated markets and place strong limits on what lawmaking can happen centrally, leaving everything possible to state and local governments while allowing people free choice in where they live, so that no one is forced to stay in the jurisdictions that make the worst choices. But the forces of corruption want the exact opposite of that, and have been gaining ground.
> Complex society is the demonstration of that hypothesis. Misaligned incentives are widespread and corruption and inefficiency are the result.
Of course they are. But aligned self-interest powers co-operation beyond kin relations and altruism.
> "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" works by random chance
Orthogonal concept.
> How to actually get their incentives to align is an extremely unsolved problem
No? It's the story of civilisation. Concepts like taxation; deterrence through corporal punishment, jailing and fines; paying salary for labour; hell, religion–these are all about aligning individual self interests with collective goals.
> best method we know if is to subject them to competition
I'd argue competition is more an optimiser on these primitives. Not a primitive per se.
It's the sort of thing people generally mean when they say that someone acting in their own interest can be in your interest, and is the thing which is happening in the example from the thread.
> Concepts like taxation; deterrence through corporal punishment, jailing and fines; paying salary for labour; hell, religion–these are all about aligning individual self interests with collective goals.
And the practical implementations of all of those things are severely flawed to the point of questioning whether most of them are even net positive.
Taxes are supposed to benefit the public, and be paid with some fairness. In practice they go disproportionately to cronies or buying votes from affluent retirees, the tax code is so full of carve outs for special interests that it looks like swiss cheese and various political incentives cause it to impose severe benefits cliffs on lower middle income people that create poverty traps that benefit no one.
The criminal justice system on paper operates based on the rule of law, but the laws are so complex, overlapping and sparsely enforced that it really operates on whether a prosecutor is inclined to charge you with something. The results are mass incarceration and a system that enables a corrupt incumbent to use the threat of prosecution to extract favors.
The principal-agent problem inherent in hiring someone is well-known and is dramatically exacerbated by large organizational hierarchies that put long chains of inaccessible authority between the customer and the person ultimately doing the work.
Religion seems like a long debate but I don't think it would be controversial to assert that there have been issues there.
> I'd argue competition is more an optimiser on these primitives. Not a primitive per se.
Try to imagine any of the others operating without it. You have to pay taxes but have no alternatives on which jurisdiction to live in or who decides how much tax you pay or how the money is spent, what happens? You want to be hired or use the money you earn to buy something but there is only one employer and only one supplier of goods and services, what happens?
> sort of thing people generally mean when they say that someone acting in their own interest can be in your interest, and is the thing which is happening in the example from the thread
It's a single example of temporary alignment. Employment, citizenship and affiliation are non-kinship examples of more-durable bonds.
> the practical implementations of all of those things are severely flawed to the point of questioning whether most of them are even net positive
We can debate that. What we can't debate is whether they work. Complex societies exist and work. Everyone who has a choice makes the choice, dominantly, to stay in them.
> You have to pay taxes but have no alternatives on which jurisdiction to live in or who decides how much tax you pay or how the money is spent, what happens? You want to be hired or use the money you earn to buy something but there is only one employer and only one supplier of goods and services, what happens?
Sure. This is a modifier. It makes these other things work or not. Imagine a system with competition but no taxation. You lose public services. Same for competition without private employment–you're in a totalitarian state with a monopsony on labour.
They certainly exist. Whether they work is rather the question.
> Everyone who has a choice makes the choice, dominantly, to stay in them.
Which people actually have the choice? If a group of people want to stake out a piece of land somewhere -- even if they pay for it -- and then try to operate some kind of self-contained society there without being subject to an existing government's laws or taxes, what happens to them?
There isn't a lot of land on earth which no existing government claims is its jurisdiction.
> Imagine a system with competition but no taxation. You lose public services.
You lose tax revenue. That isn't the same thing.
Suppose nobody is maintaining the road in front of your house and there is a huge pothole, or the road isn't paved to begin with. You and a few of your neighbors, with nobody forcing you to, agree to split the cost of paying to fix it so that people can get to your house. Maybe you even just pay for it yourself because the thing is right in front of your driveway. Attempting to charge a toll or something is pointless because there isn't enough traffic to justify the administrative costs and you just want the pothole gone. Does this have a different set of benefits and trade offs? Sure. Are there still various roads that are open to the public? Yes.
And then you have to ask whether having a third of your neighbors not chip in to hire the paving company costs you more than having the government pay 600% more to have it done as a result of various corruption and administrative overhead.
> Same for competition without private employment–you're in a totalitarian state with a monopsony on labour.
A canonical example of the absence of competition.
The qualifier tells you exactly what you're overlooking. self-interest, aside for some narrow exceptions, is often in conflict with collective interest. 1 Million to me is always better than a 1 Million split with everyone.
> self-interest, aside for some narrow exceptions, is often in conflict with collective interest
Often, but not always. Successful societies amplify that exception. The whole notion of non-kinship based societies rests on mastering this alignment. When it collapses, so does the civilisation.
> 1 Million to me is always better than a 1 Million split with everyone
The benefits of co-operation mean the real trade-off is 1 million split five ways versus 100 to me. This was almost untrue in the age of conquest. It became barely true with industrialisation. It's massively true in the information age.
> The benefits of co-operation mean the real trade-off is 1 million split five ways versus 100 to me. This was almost untrue in the age of conquest. It became barely true with industrialisation. It's massively true in the information age.
The problem here is that it's true of specific things, not specific epochs. If all the government did was collect 5% in taxes from everyone and use the money to prosecute murders and maintain bridges then the result would be a huge net positive. Meanwhile in reality the government takes billions of dollars from ordinary people and gives it to the likes of Lockheed, Oracle and Microsoft.
For the amount of money the US government pays Microsoft for Office subscriptions and the like, it could pay to have an office suite developed and released into the public domain many times over. Instead it uses the incumbent, in turn requiring others to do so in order to have formats compatible with the what the government uses. Who benefits from this other than Microsoft?
Exploitation always provides better ROI than co-operation. Not only is this demonstrated throughout human history but holds true to this day. Go ahead and show me a more profitable industry than diamonds or anything that runs on exploitation even to this day.
The self-interest for the bureaucrat and representative is supposed to end at their remuneration including their handsome retirement options not shady side hustles and market manipulation at the cost of the collective.
In matters of collective concern fair and just rarely aligns with personal self-interest. Because no matter how good the outcome of any endeavour for the collective given a budget, it will be even better for select few than the entire collective. It is simple economics.
If you look at the outcome of highly corrupt states, you will see proliferation of Private Security, Collapsed education system, failed financial services and markets, not highly efficient systems in service of “self-interest of the administration”.
> not shady side hustles and market manipulation at the cost of the collective
To be clear, I'm not describing this as legitimate self-interested conduct. Elections are an alignment mechanism. Stiff penalties for corruption another. We don't have the latter in America.
> This is a true Scotsman’s fallacy. “Legitimacy” of self-interest is fluid and subjective
Legitimacy is the "alignment" question. We can't objectrively judge it, fundamentally, because it's an expression of values: to what degree do the society's system of incentives align with the greater good?
That isn't a No True Scotsman's fallacy, because there are true Scotsmen. Literally Scotsmen. And every other member of a complex society. Including, in all likelihood, you, a person who subjects themselves to laws and employment and fielty for reasons that are a mix of duty and self interest.
You seem to fail to grasp that just because people answer the call to duty it does not mean the duty is aligned with their self interest. The most stark example is joining armed forces.
Sounds like a failure to align interests. In general, politicians should want to be elected by the public, rewarded for acting in the public interest, and punished for not doing so.
A system that does none of those things and just hopes it will all work out is a recipe for disaster. Why bother even having elections in that case?
That study has been roundly criticised. In part for misunderstanding how a republic is supposed to work. It's not a majoritarian system by design–direct democracy doesn't work.
We are talking about the people who want and might be able to improve bureaucracies (towards some end). I'm asking you: do you assume they're good people? What happens when they're not?
Complex society is a potent counterargument to this hypothesis. Systems that rely on good people to work are fundamentally flawed. Instead, the game has to be about aligning self interets in favour of the collective.