[icushman]

#1: People should have some form of influence on their own governance.

#2: Any method of assigning relative degrees of influence is unacceptably vulnerable to a corruption by the advantaged party tantamount to a violation of #1.

Side note: Efficiency of law production is not a metric most people will consent to prioritizing above metrics like perceived justice.

[baddox]

What if, hypothetically, it were the case that switching from "one vote per person" to some new system would result in everyone being better off (by their own subjective notion of "better off," which can include things like how much justice they believe exists, how corrupt laws are, etc.)? Then wouldn't it make sense to argue in favor of this new system?

My point is that even though there are widely accepted moral arguments for why "one vote per person" is the best way to organize society, it really boils down to an economic argument about what the actual results of such a society will be. I suspect few people would support "one vote per person" on moral grounds if they believed that another system would result in a society where everyone is better off. Likewise, I suspect few libertarians, socialists, anarchists, etc. would continue to make moral arguments if they truly believed that their proposed society would end up the way their opponents believe it would end up.

> Side note: Efficiency of law production is not a metric most people will consent to prioritizing above metrics like perceived justice.

Economically efficient law is pretty difficult to argue against. I suspect the vast majority of people will support it if they understand the definition of economic efficiency. From Wikipedia:

"An economic system is said to be more efficient than another (in relative terms) if it can provide more goods and services for society without using more resources."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_efficiency

[dragonwriter]

> > > Can you explain from first principles why "one vote per person" is a good way to efficiently produce law

> > Side note: Efficiency of law production is not a metric most people will consent to prioritizing above metrics like perceived justice.

> Economically efficient law is pretty difficult to argue against.

"Efficiently producing law" and "producing economically efficient law" are rather dissimilar concepts, in the same way that "efficiently producing automobiles" and "producing fuel efficient automobiles" are dissimilar concepts.

[baddox]

> "Efficiently producing law" and "producing economically efficient law" are rather dissimilar concepts

Sorry, I didn't intend for you to infer that. I meant the same concept in both sentences. I am not talking about some more specific type of efficiency like fuel efficiency, which has nothing to do direct with the concept of economic efficiency.

[dragonwriter]

> Sorry, I didn't intend for you to infer that. I meant the same concept in both sentences. I am not talking about some more specific type of efficiency like fuel efficiency, which has nothing to do direct with the concept of economic efficiency.

I think you misunderstand the problem; "Producing efficient X" and "Efficiently producing X" aren't the same thing. The first is about the efficiency of the process of producing something (how the inputs are used to produce the output), the other is about the qualities of the output. The problem isn't "economic efficiency" vs. "some more specific type of efficiency", its production efficiency (in whatever terms) vs. efficiency of the product (economic or otherwise.)

[baddox]

> "Producing efficient X" and "Efficiently producing X" aren't the same thing.

I understand your claim. I'm trying to avoid a semantic argument by making it clear what I meant. I'm not arguing about what the "true meaning" of those phrases are. Just know I was referring to economic efficiency both times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_efficiency