Does anyone else here like the Wikipedia?

[Atahualpa]

nt

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon


Because some sort of market economy is the easiest solution to the problem of large agglomerations of people. Altruism requires trust to prevent free riding, which wasn't a problem in the small communities which human beings have lived in for most of the species' history because you could easily identify those who weren't pulling their weight. It's easy to identify with a common good when you are related to most of the people in your economy.

Moreover, it's easy to reach decisions about what to do in a small community, but hard for a larger one.

In other words, the market is natural and anything other than the market is only possible in a small, related group like the Waltons.

Thanks for making it quick.

[notyoueither]

Of course, even Bill-Bob was trying to sell something or other to Mary-John for something or other.

Maybe the market existed there, too?

[Thue]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Thue!

What about me?

[Thue]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's actually pretty good. I wonder, what safeguards are there for protecting articles from political biases? I looked that GW Bush one, and it was very balanced. I'd imagine if it was a free for all in editing, it would not be anywhere close to that.

There is of course rules for wikipedia articles, like being unbiased, that can be pointed out to those who want to add biased content. There is also way mediate when two editors disagree on how an article should look.

Registered members can use the "watch" feature to be told when somebody has edited an article. I imagine that at least one person has GW Bush on their watch list. Also, trusted editors (sysops, which there are a good deal of) can temporarily make a page uneditable or block an editor if he keeps making bad edits.

It seems that the people in wikipedia who value good quality and unbiased articles are stronger than those who want to add biased content, and that it is possible to agree on what a good article is. Quite comforting, really .

Looking at the edit history of the George W. Bush article there are some cute edits : [1], [2], [3]

[Agathon]

Originally posted by notyoueither


In other words, the market is natural and anything other than the market is only possible in a small, related group like the Waltons.

Thanks for making it quick.

Can you not read or something? For most of the time of the existence of our species, people have lived in small, clannish groups. Our sense of values is largely shaped by this fact due to natural selection. Hence, people tend to be squeamish about ripping other people off or price gouging even though these things are crucial to the efficient operation of a market. The explanation is that such values were selected for during the history of our species. If there is a natural state of human beings, it is relatively egalitarian.

Markets and the fixation on exchange value only arise when there are large groups of people or inter tribal trade (rare) - because they introduce trust complications and planning complications that the normal values don't work for. But we still have our inculcated sense of fairness. The selfishness required of us by the market system is one that people have a lot of trouble accepting (hence the number of people who will seek a "fair" price rather than the maximum they can get).

To say that capitalism accords with our natural method of distribution and exchange is simply false - it's a whopper of monumental proportions. A Market system - because it arises when people cannot trust in reciprocity - depends on strictly enforced laws to stop people free riding and not payiung their bills. It is in no way natural. Hobbes knew this centuries ago - it's bizarre to have to explain it still.

Worth looking at.

http://www.unm.edu/~nvaldes/326/lect7.html

[Agathon]

If you have trouble with that idea: consider the way you behave towards your own family.

If your brother needs money, you do not automatically base your decision on what's in it for you; rather you give him the money if you can. The same applies to almost all economic transactions within families - most people would consider it perverse and immoral to behave towards their family members the way they behave towards strangers (the guy at the Kwiki Mart isn't just going to give you things without there being some relatively immediate and identifiable good in it for him).

Primitive communities are a lot like families - in fact they mostly are extended families. Hence their economic behaviour towards each other is much more like that of family members than strangers.

Why do they behave this way? Because that kind of behaviour happened to be better at assuring individual survival than complete selfishness is. Hence, people are naturally altruistic and egalitarian because they share in this evolutionary endowment. Markets only arise once people start to gather in larger groups where the old system doesn't work anymore. But that doesn't stop people having mixed feelings about acting as selfishly as they can towards others and believing that it is somehow wrong. It's because it is unnatural that the market system inspires such mixed feelings.

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'd rather get my info from somewhere other than the internet equivilant of a bathroom wall.

I like that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I've replied. Wiki must remain free from owner's propaganda!

And Thue has answered back... it must also remain free from poster propaganda .

[OzzyKP]

Ok, accepting your contention that in small tribes in early human history we lived communally, not in a market system, what example does that provide for us now?

Ideally, I agree with you that small, cooperative groups of people is the best way to go. However, as you pointed out the free market exists because it is the system best able to handle the large numbers of people and large numbers of resources we now use and exchange.

A small commune is allowed and accepted in a free market system, however a free enterprize is not allowed or accepted in a communist system.

The ideal system, then, would be a free market system where people are encouraged (note, NOT forced) to join up in small communes. This provides the best of all worlds.

[:) Smiley]

The OTF deserves an entry of its own.

[Agathon]

NYE claimed that markets were natural. That's the point being argued here; save the rest for another thread.

[notyoueither]

If there is a natural state of human beings, it is relatively egalitarian.

Like when one group went off to bash another group and steal what was there to steal?

You paint a picture of Eden and propose that that, in isolation, is the only natural thing. You promote a myth about our 'natural selves' to argue against the market being natural.

If buying and selling is so unnatural, why does it spring up whenever humans start to gather, like in the first cities?

[Agathon]

No one is claiming that it was some sort of Eden, only that, if anything is natural, it is the moral economies of tribal societies - markets require us to suppress our natural altruism.

These are the facts.

[Starchild]

Another night of me aimlessly wandering Wikipedia to soak up knowledge. I'm stuck on Indonesian children's rhymes.