|
|
|
|
|
|
by cpher
4370 days ago
|
|
|
Ok, here is my last reply. Clearly, you don't want to consider any opinion other than your own: 1. You said Increasing overall production doesn't necessarily do anything for the lot of the median person. Prove it. Provide sources. This is contradictory to the past 100 years of civilization. 2. You said In a democracy, where the interests of the majority are paramount, a policy that reduces overall production but leaves the median person better off could be rational. Have you ever heard of "Tyranny of the Majority"? What if the majority wanted slavery? Would you still agree with your argument? We don't live in a democracy in the US--it's a simple way to communicate public participation in society, which is needed. You seem to be mixing stats and political metaphors with no coherent point. Finally, I'm confused with your last assertion that policy that reduces overall production but leaves the median person better off could be rational. How is that rational? Then again, humans aren't rational so maybe I'm mistaken. |
|
|
I'm happy to consider your opinion, I just don't understand what you're trying to say.
> Prove it. Provide sources. This is contradictory to the past 100 years of civilization.
This is a purely logical statement that does not require sources to prove. Imagine a society with 9 people, and 90 units of production, each person getting 10 units. Then imagine an improvement where total production goes up to 120 units, but the extra units are distributed so that each of the top three people get 20 units. Thus, not all changes that increase overall production necessarily improve the lot for the median person.
> Have you ever heard of "Tyranny of the Majority"? What if the majority wanted slavery? We don't live in a democracy in the US--it's a simple way to communicate public participation in society, which is needed.
You've got it backwards. We don't just have public participation in society, we have rule by the will of the majority, through elected leaders. The phrase "tyranny of the majority" is not synonymous with "majority rule." Rather, it refers to the exceptional case in which the majority uses its authority to abuse minorities. In the U.S. protections exist to prevent such abuse, but those are exceptions to the general rule that the majority is in charge.
In a system of limited government, the majority can express it's will through the government only in certain limited ways. But in the U.S., the "government" (state and local together) have nearly unlimited scope. In the U.S., the majority can express its will in nearly any way it wants, limited only by certain individual rights.
> Finally, I'm confused with your last assertion that policy that reduces overall production but leaves the median person better off could be rational. How is that rational?
Go back to the second scenario above. 9 people, 120 total units of production, with everyone having 10 except the top 3 people who have 20. In the next year, the people vote to change the rules so that total production is 111 units. However, that production is distributed so everyone has 11 units, while the top three people have 15 each. Thus, you have a scenario in which overall production is lower, but six people are better off and three people are worse off than the year before. In a democratic society, this is a totally rational policy.