A socialist alternative to a vcommand economy

[Az]

Do you know what purpose they have? Utility. You're a utilitarian, right? Obviously they make people happy, so how is a tamaguchi different from a computer game?

Tamaguchi makes a person happy in a similar way to herioin. You can play a computer game for a lot of time, and it can be intellectually, or reflexively challenging, as well as you'll enjoy it, for much more prolonged periods of time.

Tamaguchi is crap that doesn't make one happy but for the first day and it's a built-in quality of it.

Some games suck. All tamaguchis do, per definition.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Azazel

Do you know what purpose they have? Utility. You're a utilitarian, right? Obviously they make people happy, so how is a tamaguchi different from a computer game?

Tamaguchi makes a person happy in a similar way to herioin. You can play a computer game for a lot of time, and it can be intellectually, or reflexively challenging, as well as you'll enjoy it, for much more prolonged periods of time.

Tamaguchi is crap that doesn't make one happy but for the first day and it's a built-in quality of it.

Some games suck. All tamaguchis do, per definition.

Who better to determine the utility of something than the person who will be enjoying it? Why do you have a right to decide the utility of something for someone else.

[Az]

Who better to determine the utility of something than the person who will be enjoying it? Why do you have a right to decide the utility of something for someone else.

Load of crap. We already ban many narcotics, don't we?

[Az]

DP

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Azazel

Who better to determine the utility of something than the person who will be enjoying it? Why do you have a right to decide the utility of something for someone else.

Load of crap. We already ban many narcotics, don't we?

And you support that?

[Az]

And you support that?

Yes, for many of them.

[Kuciwalker]

Anyway, the comparison between tomagachi and heroine is ridiculous. Heroine is far more fun

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Agathon
No they don't. Parents often sacrifice their own welfare for that of their children. The case of wills also invalidates your position since it expresses interests which a person cannot possibly hope to benefit from.

They do it because it makes them happier! Duh! They do it because they would rather have to outcome of "oh, I lose some stuff but my children gain some" than "they don't get the best stuff I can provide them, even though I have some more fun".

So according to you, people can never have an interest which is not directed towards making them happier.

This is complete tosh, people have such interests all the time. My will expresses interests which simply cannot make me happier or unhappier depending on whether or not they are carried out, because I'll be bloody dead.

There are lots of things I'd like to see happen which wouldn't make me personally happier. For example, I'd like other people to be happy, but it doesn't matter to me whether I know they are or not, and if I don't know about it my preference will still be fulfilled (just like in the case of a will).

And what about the cases of people who sacrifice their happiness for the sake of others in full belief that they are doing so. They might do so for moral reasons, for example.

Your assertion that everyone acts to benefit themselves simply does not hold water. There are simply too many obvious examples of its falsehood. In fact, it's probably not even the case that all interests are commensurable. Every human being has experienced akrasia or conflicting interests, so even the general basis of your assertion is highly suspect.

Go ahead, and beat yourself against a wall, you can't change the facts.

That's a mindlessly idiotic definition. See... this is why people need philosophy.

No, that's the only meaningful definition. See any decent AI textbook. [/QUOTE]



OMG! I nearly fell off my chair. That's artificial intelligence. WTF does this have anything to do with real people other than that some people are constructing a machine which acts in accordance with how they believe real people behave.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
So according to you, people can never have an interest which is not directed towards making them happier.

Yes. Happiness is not necessarily "smiley" happiness, but your "happiness" with various outcomes. Whichever outcome you are "happiest" with, you choose.

OMG! I nearly fell off my chair. That's artificial intelligence. WTF does this have anything to do with real people other than that some people are constructing a machine which acts in accordance with how they believe real people behave.

Real people aren't always rational agents, thus they don't always behave in such a manner as to maximize (or attempt to maximize) their utility function.

And AI theory, game theory, rational agents and the like are all philosophy. They're just the kind of philosophy that has actual useful applications, unlike most of the stuff you probably teach

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Welfare sucks.

But it sure beats the alternative.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
If people cannot coerce others, how can there be oppression?

Because people can coerce. Money is power, and in a libertarian society, those with the money will be tyrants with no governmental check.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

the system keeps them down

How?

In 19th Century France, forcably. In 21st Century America, they are strictly regulated so that they cannot do much more than what they were founded to do, and they can't lobby the government to do anything about it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In 21st Century America, they are strictly regulated so that they cannot do much more than what they were founded to do, and they can't lobby the government to do anything about it.

What else can't they do that they want to do? They have all the rights other partnerships have (partnership is the legal name for co-ops). Law firms exist as co-ops without being 'kept down'.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

There are so many different products a consumer might want, which in turn need gazillions of subproducts to be made, that a planned economy can't do the job properly.

Indeed. The problem with totally planned economies, even with a democratic government is that it really isn't as good in deciding what people ACTUALLY want compared to the market. After all in democracy the majority win in deciding what to make.

Compare that with goods that the public demanded from automakers for decades before they became available. Despite a huge demand for airbags, automakers waited almost two decades to make them standard features in cars. Furthermore, capitalists use propaganda to confuse and cloud the minds of consumers so that they make choices not in their actual self-interest, but only in their perceived self-interest, so we get VHS instead of Beta, etc. The market isn't really all that efficient at meeting supply and demand.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What else can't they do that they want to do?

My bad, my mind went to NPOs.