while i'm not going to go into what a "Prisoner's Dilemma" or the "Tragedy of the Commons" is exactly, i will say that these absolutely show why Communism, and to a great degree Socialism, cannot work... and any refutation of this relies on a utopian society where all people are good, altruistic, and moral but also where there are no selfish or immoral people.
first, let's establish that there are, in fact, selfish people and immoral people... often, they are the same people... an immoral person may be immoral out of selfish reasons... a sociopath may be immoral without being selfish, but that would be the exception which proves the rule... a selfish person may indeed not be immoral, for what is immoral about self-preservation?... a decision which is good for the community as a whole, and therefore deemed moral by a Communist or Socialist society, may not be good for the individual... in fact, it may be directly detrimental to an individual... therefore, we cannot conclude that a selfish person is actually immoral, unless you define morality by self-sacrifice for the greater good, which Socialism often puts forward.
the healthcare debate in America is a prime example of selfish and immoral people in action... is it selfish to desire to keep one's own earned income?... to Socialists, yes... by keeping your own income is to deny needed resources to those who cannot earn their own; e.g. the disabled, the elderly, the young... an orphan may become a ward of the state, and how does the state pay for this orphan but through laying of taxes on those who might otherwise not provide for that orphan... the Libertarians might say it is for private charity to support the orphans, so those who are inclined to may give freely of their own resources... but history shows how poorly that goes for the orphans... during meager times, the larger donors may not have the resources to share, and those who did not give during times of plenty are sure to not give during times of scarcity... many might even assume that the needs are met by some unknown persons, and therefore their generosity is not necessary... you can see this in action at your local Humane Society or pet shelter... furthermore, when private charity is given, often the gifts are contingent on the charity behaving in certain ways... if an orphanage were to solicit charity, yet they squander those meager resources on opulence for the care-givers, donations would surely stop coming... but what happens to the orphans when it does?
likewise, with healthcare, we are often told that there are two choices... one, each person is responsible for their own fortunes... two, everyone must be responsible for the well-being of everyone else... but there are really more choices than this.
like in the Prisoner's Dilemma, each person can act selflessly or selfishly... if they act selflessly, they understand that other people are free to act selfishly... in economic terms, if everyone acts selflessly, the rate of return is equitable with the amount given... but if even one person acts selfishly, the rate of return on any charitable giving will be reduced... the more selfish actors, the lower the return... unless, of course, you yourself also act selfishly... then the rate of return is greater than what is given... but if everyone acts selfishly, the rate of return dwindles down to zero.
source:
The Economist explains economics: What is the Nash equilibrium and why does it matter? | The Economist
Prisoner's Dilemma
Tragedy of the Commons
No comments:
Post a Comment