= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TobyBartels comments on Welcome to Less Wrong! - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (1953)
Yes, it's my ultimate social value! That's not a tautology, but an axiom. I don't like it because I believe that it maximises happiness (or whatever), I just like it.
Yes, this is more interesting, especially when closing a road would improve traffic flow. People have to balance their desire to drive on the old road with their desire to drive in decongested traffic. If the drivers have control over whether to close the road, then the paradox dissolves (at least if all of the drivers think alike). But if the road closure is run by an outside authority, then I would oppose closing the road, even if it's ‘for their own good’.
Also maybe relevant: Sen's paradox. If you can't tell, I love this stuff and could go on listing it all day :-)
As currently described at your link, that one doesn't seem so hard. Person 2 simply says to Person 1 ‘If you don't read it, then I will.’, to which Person 1 will agree. There's no real force involved; if Person 1 puts down the book, then Person 2 picks it up, that's all. I know that this doesn't change the fact that the theorem holds, but the theorem doesn't seem terribly relevant to real life.
But Person 1 is still being manipulated by a threat, so let's apply the idea of freedom instead. Then the preferences of Persons 1 and 2 may begin as in the problem statement, but Person 1 (upon sober reflection) allows Person 2's preferences to override Person 1's preferences, when those preferences are only about Person 2's life, and vice versa. Then Person 1 and Person 2 both end up wanting y,z,x; Person 1 grudgingly, but with respect for Person 2's rights, gives up the book, while Person 2 refrains from any manipulative threats, out of respect for Person 1.