Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> I don't particularly value equality - rather, I value utility. If I can make everyone better off, but increase inequality in the process, I will.

Unfortunately, inequality is, empirically, one of the strongest sources of disutility. So, as much as you might think you can "make everyone better off, but increase inequality in the process" when you use poor proxies for utility, you probably can't.

> I also don't assign much value to proportionate representation.

Comparative studies (at least among nominal democracies), show that proportionality is fairly strongly correlated with experienced utility of government. So, this may be incompatible with your claimed preference for utility. (see, e.g., Lijphart's Patterns of Democracy.)

> I think I'd prefer the rich to have more political power, they seem to be the least insane.

Maybe they just have more power to shape perceptions through media, image management, etc.



What evidence do you have that inequality is a source of disutility?

Note that if you pull out one of the ever popular left wing scatterplots putting cross-country inequality on the x-axis, I'm going to pull out one with a higher r^2 putting something politically incorrect like single mothers or black people on the x-axis.

As for proportional repersentation, if it indeed is instrumentally useful in creating utility that's fine. But I only care about it insofar as it actually gets us other good outcomes - it's not something I intrinsically value.


Proportional representation makes sense because morality & values are subjective. Its implementation leaves a lot to be desired (see futarchy).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: