You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Dagon comments on Crazy Ideas Thread - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: James_Miller 18 June 2016 12:30AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (92)
Tags: crazy_idea

Comments (92)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Dagon 19 June 2016 04:05:09AM 1 point [-]

If you have precise operational definitions of "responsibility", "reward" , "power", and "social product" that are amenable to public calculation, please share them. Getting agreement on the formulas should be a piece of cake if you can get agreement on the linear measures.

If.

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 19 June 2016 07:00:58AM 0 points [-]

The operational definitions that I used when I toyed around with this idea were:

  • reward is just monetarily income (or an equivalent thereof). I really should have made clear that this is imagined to be compatible with normal economics)
  • (amount of) responsibility is * a) the number of persons you make decisions on behalf of with respect to (a subset of) the rules of the society. This responsibility can be agreed on (e.g. if you have a job where your decisions affect other people) or implicit (e.g. responsibility for yourself of your children) * b) the monetary value of goods that you affect by your actions (again as agreed on or implicit), ** both can be fractional if responsibility is shared
  • social product is just gross national product ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_product )
  • yes, power is left vague. Choose any of (structural limit on) income or responsibility as above.

I'm not sure which So8res was using in his quest

This became my new goal: distill an ideal social structure for humans

but I assume that he also had operational definitions and also operational mechanics in mind.

Comment author: Dagon 19 June 2016 03:45:56PM 1 point [-]

Hmm. I don't think that works (or maybe you're just describing capitalism). If individuals have control over money, you can't have a societal design that contradicts their spending choices.

  • Currently, individuals are rewarded linearly for the amount*degree that they "take responsibility" (=sell products or provide service) for someone who has money to pay. This is a direct result of the operation of monetary transactions.
  • Currently, sub-groups can incorporate in order to make individual-like actions.
  • There is an increase in power with group size, but there's no simple definition of "power" that makes it feasible to calculate. I'm sure it is mathematically limited, though.
  • (optional) private property can be taken if powerful groups (governments usually) think they need it more than the owner.
Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 19 June 2016 10:17:02PM 0 points [-]

Capitalism allows unlimited private property with all the consequences for concentration of capital. If you don't want that you have to let go of something. Approaches that come to mind (and have been suggested) are

  • taxes on capital (which basically takes property away)
  • taxes on on income that approach 100% and thus limit income
  • limits for incorporation (anti-trust laws)
  • contracts that structure how income can be used (e.g. trusts are often highly structured in their spending)

Basically I'm suggesting very general contracts that effectively change the linear reward effect you mention first to a consistent sub-linear one.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit