I wrote the most drafts about the harmony of men’s interests
Is there a reason why you used men instead of people or humans, etc.? If I wanted to send this to my wife it might seem a little exclusionary.
That means everyone can win, rather than some people having to lose. It means people can work together instead of working against each other. It means no one has to be sacrificed or victimized. Everyone can succeed without violently oppressing anyone else.
A hypothetical I’ve been thinking about is a Fortune 500 company CEO retiring and needing a replacement. There are two top candidates for the job, S. Emiya and Elliot Temple. Elliot is a stand-up guy with great thinking skills. He’s the best choice for the job, and the universes where he becomes CEO are more prosperous for the average person than the ones where he doesn’t.
S. Emiya, not so much. He’ll do an ok job as CEO, not great. He’s not really a stand-up guy either. In fact, he’s thinking Elliot is going to get the job. So he decides to set up some project with the purpose of having it fail and scapegoating Elliot. Or he spreads some embellished stories or rumors in private conversations with his friends on the board of directors. Or he points out some of Elliot’s potentially unpopular personal beliefs and starts an uproar on social media. etc. etc.
Most of the time S. Emiya is happy to cooperate with everyone and let them live freely, working together for our greater good. But when he has a lot on the line, like a once in the lifetime opportunity to become CEO, he might act in his own self-interest rather than doing the “right thing”.
Government is (or at least should be ) the institution which defends men from violence (including from breach of contract without proper compensation). Government makes large societies work by addressing the main risk of society (violence). So government helps us get benefits of society (trade and sharing ideas).
S. Emiya might make sure that he never does anything explicitly illegal. Like telling an embellished story in a private conversation isn’t illegal, to the best of my knowledge. Should it be? Is this something we have to worry about?
I think most people are happy to cooperate until there’s a situation where they have a lot to gain or lose. They recognize that cooperating benefits them (and everyone else) most of the time but sometimes they don’t care about everyone else.
More people are better off overall when Elliot becomes CEO, but S. Emiya stays in his current role. He might not get another shot at being promoted internally to CEO, he doesn’t have the CEO experience to reliably get a job at another Fortune 500 company, etc. He personally stands to gain a lot more if he just becomes CEO now and might not care that he wouldn’t do quite as good of a job as Elliot.
How would you convince S. Emiya that he should cooperate with Elliot in this situation instead of acting selfishly?
Side note - I didn’t understand what the unbounded category was for until now. I like the idea.
It’s an old idea that a lot has already been written about, which I’ve read a bunch of, so I echo the existing phrasing partly because I’m used to it and partly to more strongly connect to it and have better callbacks to it that more people will catch. Also, the phrasing is more awkward with “people” or “humans”.
Competing job candidates is the example Ayn Rand uses in her article Chapter 4. - The “Conflicts” of Men’s Interests in her book The Virtue of Selfishness, so you can find some answers there.
Depends. There are laws about defamation. The basic issue is you can’t lie about facts about people and cause damages, but you’re entitled to express your opinions and to share true facts (even if that causes damages).
PS I moved this to the existing topic about the article. Also, please give source links when sharing quotes (the quote from my CF article is OK now that your post is in a thread where the OP links it, but the quotes from Liberalism: Reason, Peace and Property · Elliot Temple are unsourced.)
I will look into it, thanks.
PS I moved this to the existing topic about the article.
I considered posting it here at first. But I liked the idea of receiving harsher criticism in the Unbounded category. Do the Unbounded rules apply here or the friendly rules?
I’ll make sure to properly source quotes in the future as well.
Like at other forums in general, it’s basically up to the people in a discussion to figure out what’s OK with them.
You can mention that you want unbounded responses in a brief note at the start or end of a post if you want to. When looking at forums I was hoping to be able to add tags to comments so people could give meta data info like that, but Discourse only allows tags on top level posts.