trc (03/10/83)
Kenneth Almquist: Quote: ...self interest may sometimes benefit society, I dont't see that rational self interest can form an adequate basis for building a society. :End-quote In my article, I stated that self interest and altruism sometimes have the same results. I was NOT trying to justify self-interest when I said that. Rather, I was pointing out that, just because the results are the same, the principles behind them need not be. As for self interest being a good basis for a society, check some of my previous notes, or better yet, read some of Ayn Rand's works - "The Virtue of Selfishness" in particular. It answers many of the common objections to her philosophy. I am familiar with the "tragedy" of the commons. But I would make neither of the arguments you suggest - reduced grazing or political "allocation" solutions. I would go to the real cause of the problem - the existance of and dependence on a "communal resource". Note that the problem would not have existed if the Commons had been privately owned. Individuals would not have over-grazed their own land, or if they did, their neighbors that did not would not be harmed. As for self interest not being a good description of human behavior, ask yourself how often you deliberately act in a way that goes against the achievement of things that you value. (Love, mutual assistance in disasters, and so on ARE in one's self interest.) For a good definition of self interest see Ayn Rand's works. For a quick definition - Self interest is the attitude of seeking what is good for oneself. Rational self interest seeks things that really are good for oneself, as determined by the application of one's reason to an analysis of one's values. Tom Craver houti!trc
ka (03/12/83)
Reply to Tom Craver: I guess in my attempt to make my previous article concise I cut a little too much out. Your response to the "Tragedy of the Commons," and I assume you mean it to be a general solution, is to eliminate "communal resources." I don't view that as a realistic solution. First let me make clear that I don't view the ownership of property as fundamental, so I don't view the division of the commons into individually owned plots as fundamentally different from other political "allocation" solutions. My main point, however, is that ownership solutions are not always available. Although I have not read Ayn Rand, I did reread your articles. In response to the environment, a more complex communal resource, you wrote: The issue of air pollution and other abuses of "free" things can be handled under capitalism. Consider how a person who set traps on public sidewalks would be treated. It is not that person's use of the sidewalks that would be criminal, but the harm (or threat of harm) caused by the traps. The same is true of pollution. As with all free things, air can be taken and possessed, so long as no harm is caused to others. This seems to be saying that all air polution should be eliminated. That is not practical in modern society, maybe you support something similar to the current system where the Environmental Protection Agency sets polution limits and penalizes those who fail to follow them? That is not an "ownership" solution, and I don't believe that one exists. p While we are discussing the EPA, let me reiterate the second point in my previous article. Environmental laws and regulations exist in part because myself and hundreds of thousands of other people send contributions to environmental organizations. These people are not acting out of rational self interest; as a group these contributions are effective; individually their effect is minute. A while back somebody made the claim that USENET couldn't exist under communism. It wouldn't exist in a "no communal resources" society either. It may be true that people do not deliberately act in a way that goes against the achievement of things they value; the various psychological studies which come to mind as contradicting the notion of people as acting in their own rational self interest all seem to contradict the "rational" part. As for the definition of self interest, it leaves open the question of who defines what is "good for oneself." I assume you define it rather than letting each individual define it for himself/herself. Otherwise you wouldn't know the definition of it for a given individual and could not say: I believe that there are objective bases upon which one can judge the quality of one's life. Crimes such as these [theft, rape, etc.] don't enhance ones life in the long run. Most philosophies try to tell other people what is good for them, so I'm not complaining about that. The point is that I may not agree with your definition of "good for oneself," so you are not argueing that I should act in whatever way I perceive to be in by self interest. In fact, just before the above quote you wrote However, just believing that something improves one's life is not enough. so that even if you are using my definition of "good for me," you still do not necessarily want me to do what I perceive to be in my self interest. I don't think that our viewpoints are totally opposite. Any successful organization of society must take into consideration human nature as it exists, and capitalism/private property/self interest seems work efficiently in practice. That doesn't mean, however, that situations will not arise which require other solutions. And while I agree that the notion of private property works fairly well, I value the efficient organization of society and the individual freedom for action which ownership seems to provide, not the concept of ownership per se. Kenneth Almquist