> Ed earthlink.net> wrote innews:50f09fc7-69b5-44b1-ac04-19e75be63a17@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>

>>> Ah, several false --- or at best dubious --- premises there. First,
>>> that any of the needs presumed or cited are "mutual." What is the
>>> evidence that Alfie "needs" a transit system he does not use (which
>>> he must, if the need is "mutual")? What is the evidence that he is
>>> "dependent" upon it, even though he apparently doesn't realize that
>>> he is? Secondly, what could possibly qualify any of his neighbors,
>>> singly or collectively, to determine that transist systems and
>>> wetlands are in Alfie's self- interest, in the face of Alfie's
>>> declaration, and his observable behavior, that they are not?

>> Well, system analysis may be possible.  Lets do a thought experiment;
>> imagine that Alfie lives in a major city like London, Chicago or
>> Berlin, if Alfie was a hermit far out in the country the transit
>> system isssue would never arise.  Now imagine that the entire transit
>> system is removed, will Alfie's life remain unchanged?  No, the
>> highest probability is that it will deteriorate.  Alfie doesn't ride
>> the transit system but his fellow workers do, the customers of his
>> employer do and when they con no longer get about as easilly, jobs
>> will be lost, smog will go up, economic conditions in the city will
>> worsen.  Alfie does need the transit system, he just doesn't know it.

>
> That is the "everything is connected" argument. It is true, of course,
> that in human societies, and in all complex adaptive systems, everything
> is connected, so that a change anywhere in the system may have
> measurable effects everywhere else within it. But it overlooks the
> "adaptive" feature of those systems, and the mechanisms by which the
> system adapts to changes. In CAS's, each agent is autonomous, and
> responds only to changes in his local environment, wherein he seeks to
> optimize his own welfare. It is the local variables, those which effect
> him directly, that he is in the best position to evaluate and control.
> That holds throughout the casual chain. So if a public transit system is
> about to shutdown, the persons directly affected --- the employees and
> regular users --- will be the persons best able to adapt to the change.
> Most of them will quickly find other employment and alternative means of
> travel. The next layer of effects will be felt by the employers of the
> employees who used the transit system. They may adapt by arranging other
> means of transportation for their employees, perhaps just by raising
> their pay to make alternate modes feasible, or by hiring new employees
> who are already using other means. If those pay raises force increases
> in the prices of the employers' products, then we have another layer of
> adaptation, and the customers for those products will adapt by locating
> alternate sources. And so on.
>
> A complex system adapts to changes "from the ground up." A change
> anywhere in the system may have global effects, but those effects vary
> in their character and intensity, depending upon the causal distance of
> other agents from the locus of change. At each stage, the agents
> affected are in the best position, and will be the most highly
> motivated, to adapt to the change as it presents itself at that stage.
> The adaptation of the system as a whole to the change will be *optimum*
> if the adapatation proceeds via this "ground up" mechanism.
>
> You are mistaken in assuming that Alfie's life will deteriorate if the
> transit system fails. The transit system, if it is surviving on
> subsidies, has already failed. If the subsidies are withdrawn and the
> system shuts down, the users of that system will find more efficient
> means of transportation. Provided the subsidies he has been paying are
> returned to him, Alfie's life will probably improve. Alfie does not need
> the transit system. He needs some of the goods produced by some users of
> that system. If those users do not find alternatives to the transit
> system, Alfie will obtain his goods elsewhere.
>
> You might also note the consequences of your argument. If subsidies to
> transit systems are warranted because "everything is connected," then so
> are subsidies to steel manufacturers, farmers, manaufacturers of nuts
> and bolts, cattle ranchers, garment manufacturers --- indeed, to
> everyone participating in an economy. Taken to its logical conclusion,
> everyone's income is captured by gummint to subsidize activities distant
> from them, because "everything is connected," and the gummint
> bureaucrats are able to grasp all these connections and allocate
> resources where they are most needed, in "everyone's best interests."
> That is the central fallacy of planned economies.
>

>>> The child's incapacity results from lack of experience, and from
>>> as-yet undeveloped reasoning skills necessary to foresee and weigh
>>> the consequences of an act. But we are presuming here that Alfie is
>>> an adult, with experience comparable to that of his neighbors, and
>>> with reasoning and planning skills adequate to allow him to build a
>>> house, operate a farm, run a successful business, make some prudent
>>> investments, raise kids himself and save for their college education,
>>> etc., etc. What would lead us to conclude that these skills fail him
>>> in the case of wetlands and transit systems?

>

>> But we know full well that adults, like children, often get it wrong.
>> As in the example of Alfie and the transit system, they underestimate
>> their dependence on the broader social system.

>
> Dependence upon the broader social system does not entail dependence
> upon any particular feature of it. All of its features --- all of its
> current materials, methods, subsystems and microstructure, are
> dispensible and subject to obsolescence. The system will adapt and re-
> optimize itself come what may, as long as agent autonomy is preserved.
>

>> The current housing
>> and mortgage "crisis" is an example, people thought they were making
>> prudent investments in their homes, but, in many cases, they weren't.
>> Ordinary people, in stable social and economic conditions, do OK for
>> themselves, generally, but they usually severely underestimate their
>> depedence on the social system for their well being.  When, as in the
>> case of the housing crisis or the Great Depression, that social system
>> is not stable then people always seem surprised that their efforts
>> cannot keep their life styles constant.  I take that to mean that they
>> are benefitting from the system in good times in ways they do not
>> recognize.

>
> There is no question that humans benefit from living in a civilized
> society. That is why nearly all humans live in them. The error lies in
> supposing that from that fact it follows that all people benefit from
> transit systems, wetlands protection, mortgage subsidies, farm
> subsidies, urban redevelopment, or other particular features of that
> system. Only certain persons benefit from such programs. And though
> those benefitted may provide services or products useful to others, the
> benefits do not "carry through," so to speak, to the users of their
> products. They are variable factors which their producers have chosen to
> utilize, when they might have chosen others. The producers' choice of
> input factors is a matter of indifference to his customers, as long as
> the products are satisfactory.
>

>>> Majority rule does not reveal collective wisdom; it reflects
>>> collective ignorance.

>

>> The alternatives do not do better.  Tyranny in its various forms has
>> not proved superior.  True anarchy has not been tried for any extended
>> period, I believe because even our poor political system provides
>> benefits much greater than pure chaos would do.  Further, I don't
>> believe anarchy is stable, I think regulating mechanisms would arise
>> and be supported by the people and we'd have government again.

>
> I agree! The question is, What is the role, what are the limits, of
> government? Not whether tyranny or anarchy is preferable.
>

>>> No problem there, either. The farmer who wishes to drain a wetland
>>> certainly would have an obligation to assure that he is not also
>>> draining someone else's wetland.

>

>> Where did this obligation come from?  Is it consistent with the POV
>> you're expressing here that the farmer should be forced to shoulder
>> this obligation whether he wants to or not?

>
> Of course. He would be diverting water from others' property onto his.
> It would be no different from diverting a stream from which many
> downstream users draw water in order to fill a lake he wishes to create
> on his property. The water in both cases is a common, with each user
> entitled only to his own share.
>

>>> The farmer's decision to drain a wetland may indeed have consequences
>>> for others, even if he assures that no wetland other than his own is
>>> drained. His neighbors may have marginally fewer waterbirds to hunt,
>>> or merely admire, in subsequent seasons, an interest the farmer does
>>> not share. Is the farmer obliged to contribute to satisfying those
>>> interests of his neighbors?-

>

>> It all depends.  Suppose his neighbors wnat their wetland, not to
>> hunt, but to preserve an endangered species.  His dry land has an
>> impact on whether or not there is enough wetland overall to insure the
>> survival of the species.  Then yes he has an obligation.

>
> Why? What if he is not interested in the survival of this species? If
> others are interested, why don't they create the needed wetlands on
> property of their own, which is now dry? What obligates the farmer to
> spare his neighbors that expense by assuming it himself?
>
> People have the habit of thinking they are entitled to benefits from
> another's property they may have come to enjoy by accident. The classic
> examples are residents of a new subdivision who enjoy the tranquil view
> of the woods across the road from their living room windows, or whose
> kids love to play in those woods. When the owner of that tract proposes
> to develop it --- with a subdivision much like their own --- the
> neighbors across the road turn out en masse to protest. They believe
> they are entitled ro that view and that "free" playground in perpetuity.
>
> The farmer has no duty to devote his property to serving others'
> interest in species preservation. Those who have that interest are
> obliged to supply the required habitat with their own resources.