On Aug 22, 11:06Â pm, Publius
nospam.comcast.net> wrote:> 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.
I do not share your optimism that not matter what people choose to do,
their adaptation to local conditions will, in the end, make the
overall system "better". My experiences convince me that people can
make a good system into trash just as well as they can take a
particular system state and improve it. One of my pet peeves is quasi-
wilderness areas near large cities; once roads are built giving easy
access to urban types the wildernesses turn into trash dumps. The
people who hope to enjoy these areas don't adapt, pick up their trash
and perserve the beauty, instead the bitch about the garbage and then
dump their own. After a while they stop coming but the damage is
done, it takes a long time (in human terms) for these environments to
recover.
>
> 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.
I deny this. The parks in my city survive on subsidies, that does not
mean they've failed, they are enjoyed and used extensively. The
question is whether the "system" is required to collect the costs of
maintaing a common "at the gate" or whether subsidies, collected as
property taxes on the neighborhood around the parks,for example, is a
more efficient way. Roads and transit systems are in this category, it
would be an absurd inconvenience to have toll gates on each city
street.
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. Â 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. Â 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.
But it's a system. It is in large part indivsible. You can't have
democcracy in Minneapolis and agressive military dictatorship in St.
Paul. You can't maintain emergency rooms if only only those who
believe they will be injured contribute to keeping them in being.
Nobody under 30 ever believes they can have a car accident. You have
to do those things that make the system work. There will always be
some who don't want to support such efforts until they actually need
that particular service; people who live downtown don't want to pay
for roads to the hospital until they get sick. But then it's too late.
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. Â Tyranny in its various forms has
>> not proved superior. Â 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. Â 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.
>
Well, good government is probably the scarsest commodity in the
world. However, once you agree that some government is probably
necessary then its role ought to be to maintain the complex economic
and social system that is civilization. It ought to insure that
citizens share the burden of that maintenance in some equal or
proportional way as closely as possible and infringe on their
liberties as little as possible while meeting that goal.
A good example of how hard this is is education. Should people
without children contribute to the education system? Is the argument
that all benefit from the system in that it raises the economy
generally to have an educated populace a valid one? I don't know. But
I do believe that government is obliged to insure that children are
educated, and that it is a system maintenance issue. If we don't do
that the system will deteriorate. This opinion goes along with my
belief that the system of civlization is not automatically self
perpetuating, that it requires some degree of planning and support. I
do not believe that it can be done "from the ground up", that is
anarchy. On the other hand I'm fully sensitive to the horrors and
inadequacy of classical central planning.
In the end I think we actually need good government, I just don't know
how to do it. If you and I can disagree on Alfie's role in supporting
the common transit system, a simple case, how much harder it is to
establish good government on a broader basis.
Maybe we need better means of measurement. Our disgreement on Alfie
could be partially settled if we could actually measure the impact. I
think this could be done to a considerable degree by good scientists,
but it isn't done, instead we all stand on principle. Standing on
principle can be a great impediment to good governance.
>>> 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? Â 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. Â Suppose his neighbors wnat their wetland, not to
>> hunt, but to preserve an endangered species. Â His dry land has an
>> impact on whether or not there is enough wetland overall to insure the
>> survival of the species. Â 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 --- ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
