Subject:
|
Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 10 Aug 2004 19:12:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2105 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
| |
And if your holeful yard increases the value of my
property, then perhaps (hypothetically) I’d be willing to compensate you for
your diggery.
|
But suppose you’re not?
|
In a market-ruled society the same would be true of any essential task that no
one wanted to perform.
| |
It’s not INHERENT worth here, it’s EXTRINSIC worth that matters. I posit that
some work is worth more than others because it’s judged useful by more
people. I further posit that it’s more efficient to let the market determine
worth than it is to have a Soviet do it.
|
Knowing your preference for “outcome” versus “intent,” I would speculate that
the years of training are, in the end, irrelevant to your assessment of the
value of the skill/task/service. Here’s a different thought experiment:
Guy A works for fifteen years as student, intern, resident, etc. to become a
brain surgeon of skill level X. At the end of those 15 years he asserts that
“My skill, won through 15 years of effort, justifies my choice to set my
price-for-service at Y,” and the market may accept or reject his assertion at
its whim.
Guy B sits on his butt for fifteen years before being struck by an alien
brain-o-ray that in one swoop grants him all the skill and knowledge re: brain
surgery that Guy A worked so hard to achieve. Guy B then asserts “My skill,
acquired through effortless means, justifies my choice to set my
price-for-service at Y,” and the market likewise may accept or reject his
assertion at its whim.
If Guy A and Guy B have identical skill and ability, would you say that it is
reasonable for both to set their price at the same level? Doe the ability
itself matter more than the effort that it took to acquire that ability? Or
does the effort justifiably play into the worth of the service? Or do you set
aside individual choice and let the market itself decide?
I’m not a big believer in “fairness” as an actual force in the universe. But IMO
it nonetheless strikes me as objectionable that one who achieves a goal through
no effort should be rewarded equally as the one who achieved that goal through
substantial effort.
That’s why, to me, the notion of “let the market decide” has only limited value
in the real world because it grants unassailable favor to those who are
well-placed by happenstance of birth. A kid with no skills can grow up to be
President, hypothetically, because he is rich and well placed. And how can the
market, which is vastly more succeptible to manipulation by the well-placed than
the not-well-placed, be trusted to dole out the rewards to the well-place and
not-well-placed?
| |
Do not get me wrong, I chose Tercel on purpose, as I consider Toyota about
the finest car company extant in terms of reliability and suitability to
purpose. But their higher end products are better than their lower end
ones... Better fit, better finish, more thoughful design, more accessories,
more power, etc etc.
And surely you’d agree that if I had a Lexus and you had a Tercel, I had
“more” than you did?
|
I’d be forced to ask why “more” is preferable. Why is it not enough to have
“enough?” And if we all had “enough,” wouldn’t that reduce the urge to screw(1)
one’s neighbor for the sake of getting “more?” I know, I know--Who has the
“right” to say that someone else has “enough?”
Are we, as a culture, so shallow that we are more concerned with acquiring
“more” for ourselves than we are with ensuring that others have “enough?” That
speaks pretty poorly of our chances at longterm survival as a species.
Dave!
(1) Is “screw” in this usage a LUGNET-objectionable word? I figured that it
was part of the non-profane lexicon, but on re-reading, I couldn’t be sure. If
it is, I’ll pick another metaphor in deference to the TOS.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) Sure, sure... that's the free rider problem. The pat answer solution is to figure out how to price the task into the costs borne by those to whom it is essential. (note: government is the most common, but not only, mechanism for doing that (...) (20 years ago, 10-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) But suppose you're not? What I'm driving at here is that it is difficult to take worth as stated by the person doing the task... and that further, some activities are indeed worth less. It rather seems to me that even in Chris's scheme he's (...) (20 years ago, 10-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
113 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
