- Mark Kolarik
- Rohnert Park, CA
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
If YOU were to become your country's BENEVOLENT AUTOCRACY, what would you do with your economy? Social services? Military? Infrastructure?
I am imagining a premise where there is no check on your executive power, except the natural restrictions imposed by your country being a part of a finite world with other autonomous countries with their own leaders. Imagine yourself as your country's Fairy God Governor, if you will.
How would you approach executing the duties of you new position?
What standard of living would you provide for yourself (given that you can have anything you want)?
What would be your top priorities?
What you would do if you were in a position to cheerfully and benevolently affect the course of your country and/or your people, how would you do it (or try to do it)?
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Mark Kolarik
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaldor%E2%80%93Hicks_efficiency
These methods can be used to determine if an improvement is actually a Pareto one.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
on the other hand, if a dictator uses such reasoning to compensate C who does not agree with it, it is not any better than any other dictator-ish behavior. C is worse off according to his own valuations.
dropping in more and more factors won't make understanding easier. on the contrary, it will just muddy the waters until finally nobody will be able to follow the logic, and the dictator can claim victory.
Mark Kolarik
You are right about the K-H model in that it can lead to "dictator-ish behavior," however with true K-H actions, the system as a whole would at least be more efficient. I'm merely saying that to contrast it from true dictatorships which are usually not ultra-efficient. Although they can be, such efficiencies rarely last a long time.
Good points :) Out of curiosity, suppose a group of people made a compromise such that each person in the group gets less than they want of something they individually desire, but that in return they all get something else that is equally beneficial to them, as each individual sees it. If you were a part of that group, would you consider yourself to be worse off under the compromise (since you are giving up something that you want) or neutral/better off (since you are being compensated in some way, albiet in a different form)?
Krisztián Pintér 200+
because better or worse can not be measured. it can only be felt. only i can know what is better for me from two options. and even i can not tell in general, only in a certain situation, at a point in time.
about that last question: probably i didn't understand, because the answer is already in the initial conditions. you said that what i give up and what i get are equally good for me. so the answer is this: i don't care since they are equally good for me. i'm neutral to that change.