This is good. It’s reminiscent of Bryan Caplan’s “Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids”, but I like the edginess of pitching it in terms of mediocre parenting. It’s dead obvious that lives where your parents don’t show up to your games are worth living but what dismay that thought causes among the good PMC types!
>Most exploitation theorists are skeptical that the NWC is correct (Wertheimer 1996; Bailey 2010; Arneson 2013; Barnes 2013; Malmqvist 2016). For if it were, then it would seem to be a mistake to blame individuals who engage in certain forms of mutually beneficial exploitation—for example, those who engage in “price gouging” by selling electrical generators to victims of natural disasters at inflated prices. (Zwolinski 2008). After all, we usually would not blame those individuals if they stayed home and did nothing. […]
>Woah! I didn’t realize that there could be so much opposition from ethicists to the NWC. My impression from my more libertarian days was that anti-NWC ideas are primarily an emotional kneejerk reaction that goes away under rational analysis. Apparently not!
In what world is this not an emotional kneejerk reaction that goes away under rational analysis??? Either A. Somebody buys generators a few states over, drives them in in his truck, and sells them at a high price, enabling his customers to get electricity in a mutually beneficial transaction, or they sit miserable in the dark.
>Which would be very good to do ethically, because living is good and I personally don’t think kids at orphanages should be euthanized to end their suffering, they are fine.
>This is a pretty extreme opinion and (as the essay admits) not a politically feasible one at the moment. Yet I will bite even this bullet and admit that I’m convinced by it. Indeed, mass-produced orphans will be fine.
Re price gouging: I meant to express surprise that anti-gouging sentiment is at all widespread among ethicists; my impression had been that it's almost exclusive to popular rhetoric.
I have no doubt that Communist Romania had terrible policies, but I think that doesn't preclude that a substantially different implementation of a similar goal could work. REAL exowombs have never been tried!
wouldn't the argument for the first one be that there's no reason for price gouging? as far as simple demand supply, sure yeah increase price. ethically, however, there'd be no reason for it to be a different sale than any others
This is good. It’s reminiscent of Bryan Caplan’s “Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids”, but I like the edginess of pitching it in terms of mediocre parenting. It’s dead obvious that lives where your parents don’t show up to your games are worth living but what dismay that thought causes among the good PMC types!
>Most exploitation theorists are skeptical that the NWC is correct (Wertheimer 1996; Bailey 2010; Arneson 2013; Barnes 2013; Malmqvist 2016). For if it were, then it would seem to be a mistake to blame individuals who engage in certain forms of mutually beneficial exploitation—for example, those who engage in “price gouging” by selling electrical generators to victims of natural disasters at inflated prices. (Zwolinski 2008). After all, we usually would not blame those individuals if they stayed home and did nothing. […]
>Woah! I didn’t realize that there could be so much opposition from ethicists to the NWC. My impression from my more libertarian days was that anti-NWC ideas are primarily an emotional kneejerk reaction that goes away under rational analysis. Apparently not!
In what world is this not an emotional kneejerk reaction that goes away under rational analysis??? Either A. Somebody buys generators a few states over, drives them in in his truck, and sells them at a high price, enabling his customers to get electricity in a mutually beneficial transaction, or they sit miserable in the dark.
>Which would be very good to do ethically, because living is good and I personally don’t think kids at orphanages should be euthanized to end their suffering, they are fine.
>This is a pretty extreme opinion and (as the essay admits) not a politically feasible one at the moment. Yet I will bite even this bullet and admit that I’m convinced by it. Indeed, mass-produced orphans will be fine.
You should read about the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_orphans where this was effectively attempted and turned out to be an absolutely terrible idea.
Re price gouging: I meant to express surprise that anti-gouging sentiment is at all widespread among ethicists; my impression had been that it's almost exclusive to popular rhetoric.
I have no doubt that Communist Romania had terrible policies, but I think that doesn't preclude that a substantially different implementation of a similar goal could work. REAL exowombs have never been tried!
wouldn't the argument for the first one be that there's no reason for price gouging? as far as simple demand supply, sure yeah increase price. ethically, however, there'd be no reason for it to be a different sale than any others