Comment: RE: Joseph vs. Molyneux

(See in situ)


RE: Joseph vs. Molyneux

The video is extremely frustrating to watch because neither side is really addressing core points.

The core argument is the allocation of resources.

IMO Peter's fundamental argument is resources do not need to be considered scarce if technology can allocate resources in a way which allows everyone to have abundance.

IMO Stefan's fundamental argument is resources are scarce and ought to be allocated in a free market of voluntary exchange using the price mechanism and private ownership.

Both arguments have a fundamental flaw. The flaw of Peter's argument is who gets to decide how to allocate resources. The flaw of Stefan's argument is who gets to decide how aggression is defined. In other words both viewpoints are an intervention of nature. In nature resources are not allocated by technology and violence can be initiated in nature. In order for either system to be effective an intervention of nature is required.

The common denominator of both positions or any other form of social organization is belief. The only logical conclusion is that any system can work if people believe in it. So ... how is a problem, such as uniformity of belief, which seems on its face impossible solved?

The only answer I have is an opinion based on my own observation. I don't know anyone who thinks murder is good. It seems to me whatever system of social organization is based on self evident truth in order to obtain a maximum belief has the best chance of effectively working.