[FoRK] New Benefits of Marriage Study Actually Hints at the Horrors of Middle Age

Stephen D. Williams sdw at lig.net
Fri Jan 23 10:05:09 PST 2015

But you are right, many conservatives do seem to think there is only a simplistic strictly competitive situation in the shallow 
sense.  They played Monopoly[1], chess, etc. rather than some game that illustrated another type of outcome.


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_board_game_Monopoly
The earliest known version of Monopoly, known as /The Landlord's Game <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord%27s_Game> ... 
/originally intended /The Landlord's Game/ to illustrate the economic consequences of Ricardo's Law 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent> of Economic rent <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent> and the Georgist 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism> concept of a single tax on land value 

On 1/23/15 9:57 AM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
> If there are more than two players, you could decide to help one player to improve your position overall.  Your view of a strictly 
> competitive system can still hold.  In the context of this conversation, you could even weaken a person by "helping" them.  
> Someone raised expecting everything to be given to them and not taught the right principles would be helpless when all the giving 
> stops.  And perhaps this is the, muddled I think, point of some conservatives.  The problem is that in practice, there are a lot 
> of circumstances that along the lines of starving a baby to death to teach them how to grow their own food.  The key component of 
> tough love is shrewd guidance, not stupidity and blind neglect.
> Too many people equate "help" with throwing money at the problem and people, or at least haphazardly at people who say they can 
> help people.  I don't agree with that at all.  The best help may not involve much money changing hands at all.  Just matching the 
> right mentalities with the right students (in all senses) at the right time may make all the difference.  But "matching" and 
> "teaching" will need to take whatever forms are effective.
> sdw
> On 1/23/15 9:48 AM, Lucas Gonze wrote:
>> My understanding of “strictly competitive” is that there is no such thing as mutual wins. A winner means a loser. There are no 
>> win-win situations.
>> That’s what I read in conservative thought: a feeling that seeking win-win situations is code for seeking a loss, throwing a 
>> game, handing somebody else a win.
>> On January 23, 2015 at 9:27:03 AM, Stephen D. Williams (sdw at lig.net <mailto:sdw at lig.net>) wrote:
>>> On 1/23/15 9:13 AM, Lucas Gonze wrote:
>>>> On January 23, 2015 at 8:31:15 AM, Stephen D. Williams (sdw at lig.net <mailto:sdw at lig.net>) wrote:
>>>>> Whether that is a problem that you think needs addressed depends on whether you think the world is strictly competitive, 
>>>>> whether you
>>>>> feel indirectly enriched or diminished by it, and similar philosophical motivations. We'll take it as a given that you care for
>>>>> your own children and family. Do you care about other people's children and people in general as an extended family? Do you feel
>>>>> any responsibility to them?
>>>> sdw, I think you have two mutually exclusive points here. One is about whether the world is strictly competitive, so that 
>>>> mutual enrichment is impossible. The other is about helping others without benefit to yourself.
>>> Mutually exclusive?  Do you mean orthogonal?
>>> If I think the world is strictly competitive, I could decide to help others or not.  I might think helping would or would not 
>>> have a benefit to me even then.  If I don't think it is strictly competitive, I likewise could think either way.  If I don't 
>>> think it is strictly competitive I may be more likely to think there might be an indirect benefit.  However, unless there are 
>>> only two players involved, there is always the possibility of gaining relative to others than the giver and givee.
>>> sdw

More information about the FoRK mailing list