On 01/09/2014 05:01 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> On 1/9/14, 5:34 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> Glen wrote:
>>
>> "He who has the gold rules"
>>
>> Yeah. I can't go along with that.
>>
>> I wonder how you and I might have an rational discussion of our
>> difference?
> Is Glen's quote above his belief ("He who has the gold _ought_ to rule")
> or an proposition he is making about who ends up ruling in practice (and
> thus what any individual must be prepared to do to cope with that)?
> First clarify that.
It definitely _is_ that way, at least as far as the data I've seen.
Whether it ought to be that way is a bit of a tricky question. I can
split it again: Is it necessary that rich people rule the world? And
what would the world look like if it were not ruled by rich people?
I can't answer either of those questions. A little simulation and a few
experiments might help, though. We do have some experiments like the
dictator game and such. If every practical/feasible initial situation
evolved back to a state where rich people rule the world, then it would
be idealistic (silly) of me to claim a counter factual _ought_ to obtain.
If it turns out to be necessarily the case that rich people rule the
world, then more refined questions would revolve around how to govern
the behavior of the rich people. For example, perhaps the more rich
people there are, the more variety we'll have in the rules they set. If
that were the case, then we'd want to create as many rich people as
possible so as to maximize the freedom and capabilities of everyone,
rich and poor.
--
⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella
Oh revival
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
