Music Banter - View Single Post

Guybrush · 05-05-2011, 03:50 AM

I haven't responded to your post yet, Dotoar, because I simply have not had the time to do so. When I have had the time, I've spent it elsewhere. There's just a lot of paragraps to pick apart, so I'll do a more general reply.

A crucial argument you have is that the common good is hard to define. I don't really think it's that hard to define. For example, I think people want to be more resourceful. Since I've stated several times that I care about happiness in the long term, that means that f.ex sustainable management (when possible) of natural resources are good political decisions for the common good. F.ex rather than deplete a population of fish to feed 1 million people per year for 20 years, you can better maximize happiness/common good by sustainably feeding 500 000 people per year for 1000 years.

I see you believe that allowing people to spend money on what they want (vs. taxation) is the best way to ensure everyone's happiness. As you know, I don't agree because in such a society, I don't think people are very good at looking out for their long term happiness, either because they don't know how to or because they are not in a position to because they don't have the means/luxury to care about the long term because of the needs of the short term (ex. cheaper fish now). If everyone just pay for what they want, you get a system of winners and losers and you get a system which f.ex encourages selfishness and depletion of resources for larger short-term benefits - which is obviously not good for society's happiness in the long term.

I think in a well educated democracy, the majority will be able to make the best decisions for society; the common good. If a minority like fishers have to fish less and make less money so that we can feed more people in the future, then I think that can be a good decision if it maximizes happiness for the future. Proper management of resources and ways to avoid tragedies of the commons and so on will only become more important the way the world is headed. Ultimately, the way I see it, you're for a society with winners and losers while I'm for a society that maximizes the amount of winners, now and in the future.

05-05-2011, 03:50 AM	#183 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	I haven't responded to your post yet, Dotoar, because I simply have not had the time to do so. When I have had the time, I've spent it elsewhere. There's just a lot of paragraps to pick apart, so I'll do a more general reply. A crucial argument you have is that the common good is hard to define. I don't really think it's that hard to define. For example, I think people want to be more resourceful. Since I've stated several times that I care about happiness in the long term, that means that f.ex sustainable management (when possible) of natural resources are good political decisions for the common good. F.ex rather than deplete a population of fish to feed 1 million people per year for 20 years, you can better maximize happiness/common good by sustainably feeding 500 000 people per year for 1000 years. I see you believe that allowing people to spend money on what they want (vs. taxation) is the best way to ensure everyone's happiness. As you know, I don't agree because in such a society, I don't think people are very good at looking out for their long term happiness, either because they don't know how to or because they are not in a position to because they don't have the means/luxury to care about the long term because of the needs of the short term (ex. cheaper fish now). If everyone just pay for what they want, you get a system of winners and losers and you get a system which f.ex encourages selfishness and depletion of resources for larger short-term benefits - which is obviously not good for society's happiness in the long term. I think in a well educated democracy, the majority will be able to make the best decisions for society; the common good. If a minority like fishers have to fish less and make less money so that we can feed more people in the future, then I think that can be a good decision if it maximizes happiness for the future. Proper management of resources and ways to avoid tragedies of the commons and so on will only become more important the way the world is headed. Ultimately, the way I see it, you're for a society with winners and losers while I'm for a society that maximizes the amount of winners, now and in the future. __________________ Something Completely Different Last edited by Guybrush; 05-05-2011 at 06:32 AM.