|
NorthernGent -> RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract (3/30/2007 1:06:56 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
In anticipation, If you'll read Dawkins "The Selfish Gene" (and if you are interested enough, email me on the on the side, and I'll send you a copy), he discusses how game theory and selfishness can lead to a state of equilibrum where altruistic and selfish behavior can become part of an Evolutionary Stable Strategy (ESS). You can liken the "free market" to such a strategy.
Wanting the free market to be "fair" is an attempt to destablize a system that is a mix of altruistic and selfish, and make it wholely altruistic , and therefore inherently unstable. The result will always be unstable according to game theory (and evolution).
Yes, according to game theory, but game theory and Dawkins aren't the be all and end all. They just happen to be in agreement with you, so you point to them. There are many who disagree, including some of your former politicians.
In the last 30 years, British and US politicians have reduced government regulation of the economy in favour of the free market (with the foundations of this supposed wisdom being built on game theory applied to human behaviour). In this time, the following has happened:
1) The majority of people are more interested in going shopping and voting on pop idol than they are in democracy/politics (based on voter turn-outs).
2) Inequality is rising. The poorer are getting poorer and the richer are getting richer.
3) Jails are at bursting point.
4) The corporation is now king and running the show. They can dictate to governments - Murdoch not paying taxes, your political parties bought off by the large accounting firms and other business interests.
5) Governments are sending armies to countries (with the people paying in tax and blood) and the people seem powerless to impose their will. This is not democracy or freedom.
If game theory applied to human behaviour and the unregulated market is to be held in such high esteem, then you'll have some answers to the above 30 years where increased reliance on the market has co-incided with inequality, apathy and a lack of freedom (as per number 5).
Game theory was applied to human behaviour by John Nash. He later admitted he was paranoid schizophrenic at the time. He was locked away for 10 years and when he was released he stated that he had previously over-estimated the selfishness of human behaviour. Prior to being admitted to hospital, he conducted experiments which were intended to show that humans will always behave selfishly when given a choice - one such experiment was called "The Prisoners Dilemma" - in actual fact, all those who took in the experiment co-operated with one another rather than take the selfish option - again, I can post a link to this.
The Rand school took his theory forward, even though they knew the limitations of the theory. The reason being that it was the "proof" that right-wing economists and politicians were looking for in order to promote a return to the free market society of pre-20th century. Some of your right-wing politicians and economists championed this (James Buchanan being one) and some of ours followed suit (Margaret Thatcher being the key one). They're simply the views of a core group of people with an agenda and, ultimately, their views are built on flawed foundations.
The problem with game theory when applied to human behaviour is that it reduces humans to cold, calculating, robots who constantly strategise against one another as a consequence of self-interest. It does not consider that human beings are emotional and that we have feelings that include sadness, loneliness, euphoria etc. You may feel you are a machine, but many would counter with the notion that humans are complicated animals with various needs. There are many people who marvel at the magnitude of being part of a wider movement with a common aim.
Behavioural scientists are now beginning to question game theory applied to human behaviour. Their conclusion is that there are only two groups of humans that consistently behave in this cold, rational, robotesque manner - economists and psychopaths. Hopefully, you're the former.
Game theory as applied to human behaviour has ultimately led to distrust of the notion of public duty, but it was always intended to do that in an attempt to tear down public institutions and pave the way for a market society. In actual fact, the market society has led to control in other forms i.e. numbers and targets. Our working lives are governed by numbers and targets to an extent where people believe the numbers over reality - look at enron and the likes - the numbers were bollocks, but everyone bought into them - they took on a status of their own. Also, you, I and the bloke down the street aren't free - corporations are our masters as they control us - you work when they say you work and the CEOs and other Execs take the lion's share of reward. The majority of Britons and Americans want out of Iraq, but we can't impose our will - we ain't free in today's market society.
In a nutshell, in pratice (as well as theory) game theory applied to human behaviour, and the link to the free market, is a sham built on very shakey foundations indeed. In practice it is leading to apathy, inequality and a society governed by corporations for the benefit of corporations.
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Communism is a good example I believe. In theory, it is a very moralistic theory, with "share and share alike". But it is unworkable for the simple fact that all it takes is a single group to gain the power to control the resources of "the market", and it becomes a wholely selfish system, rather than an altruistic one.
It couldn't be any worse than the current situation where corporations have "control of the resources of the market". Surely you wouldn't say that the bonuses of the CEOs of Bechtel and Haliburton are shining examples of mankind?
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Socialism seems to be a better strategy. It is more of a mix of the two archetypes of "selfish" capitalism and "altruistic" communism. Much of the political discussion in the West today is not about whether a nation should be pure communist, or pure capitalist, but which way the economy should lean. It's a matter of emphasis and focus rather than an argument about pure types.
You misunderstand socialism. Socialism is intended to be a stepping-stone to communism. There is no better or worse as they are joined at the hip.
.
|
|
|
|
