You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: CBJr Economics Summaries: Face Off -- Section 5
I know nothing about economics so take this with a grain of salt- but wouldn't it be more useful to teach kids that even with limited resources, if we make sure everyone has enough, then we wouldn't have to compete, at least not as much?
I haven't thought that entirely through but I think that's where I'm at- but I agree that decentralization might solve a lot of these issues.
My first question would be: how do we make sure everyone has enough?
If there's one thing I've learned about human beings it's that no one ever has enough for everyone. Ever. The belief that it's possible is effectively toxic to making long-term decisions about allocating resources and it asserts are very authoritarian notion that somehow other people have a greater claim to my time than I do.
So given that conflict over resources is inevitable, shouldn't we teach children that there are good, safe, controlled methods that they can engage in conflict and resolve things? Further, that sometimes you just don't get what you want.
I would much rather have a generation of children who were taught that conflict is inevitable and that they can strive together one another like brothers than that if we only take the right things from the right people, everybody will have everything they want.
One of these things is clearly observable, and the other one is clearly observable as false.
Absolutely, conflict is inevitable, and ensuring that kids can handle conflict in an appropriate way is important. And it is extremely difficult to determine what resources are enough- as this is different for everyone. This seems counterintuitive with the sharing post, which claims that sharing first means that there is an initial ownership. There must be a happy medium between ensuring everyone has their basic needs met and personal freedom, but I don't know if that exists yet. It's certainly not a capitalist society or a communist society.
Let's be clear – it's not "extremely difficult to determine what resources are enough," it is literally impossible. Not just socially impossible, because different people have different needs and desires, but mathematically impossible. It would require perfect foreknowledge not just of production requirements but logistical requirements (and all of that complicated by the fact that humans will always be humans).
Sharing first does mean that there has to be an initial ownership. You can't share something you don't own. Or you can, but we have a word for that: "theft." In order to share something you must control it in order to decide who gets it.
The only medium there is between "ensuring" everyone has their basic needs and personal freedom is an unhappy one. This is not a function that can be optimized for maximum happiness with the results being that all members are thrilled with what they get. At best it's a function that can be optimized for minimum unhappiness, and because perfect foreknowledge and understanding of what another person wants and desires is impossible, only the people involved can maximize their level of satisfaction.
That's why capitalism works. That's why capitalism, over the last 60 years, has seriously, vastly, reduced the number of people living in poverty all over the planet. The spread of capitalist free market economics ensures that people are able to look after their own needs as best they can, that they're responsible for looking after their own needs. That's not to say everyone gets everything they want and need – because that's impossible. What it does say is that it's the best method of allocation that we have available that reflects local knowledge and local desire.
Most of the failings of free market systems occur because someone outside the context of the interaction points a finger and says, "that's not really what you want," or "that's not something I want you to have," or "you need to do that a different way," all of which impacts market exchange in a negative way. It's the imposition of external will out of accordance with those who would engage in a free exchange that seems to break things the worst.
So: to share you must have stuff. It's impossible to determine "what is enough." And it's probably a good idea to discard the myth of "the happy medium that destroys your freedom."