|
|
|
October 22, 2009
the joy-of-destruction game
Did you know that 40% of people are nasty, and if they did not fear retaliation, they would destroy the property of others? I didn't, but an Economics and Business study at the University of Amsterdam seems to confirm it: We introduce the joy-of-destruction game. Two players each receive an endowment and simultaneously decide on how much of the other player's endowment to destroy. In a treatment without fear of retaliation, money is destroyed in almost 40% of all decisions.(Via Robin Hanson.) And I always thought Amsterdam was a "nice" place! There I go, blaming furreigners! I didn't mean to, but I really would like to think that Americans would be less likely to want to destroy what others have. I'm thinking maybe only 33% of Americans would. (You know, the 33% who believe in socialism, which is built upon the impulse to take away people's property.) This is not to say that the sort of resentment which motivates people to destroy is limited to the left (and the study gives no clue as to the politics driving the destructive urges), but after all, Marxism is built on class warfare and class resentment, which I think at the core is a political attempt to collectively harness what would in be considered a violation of the 10th Commandment ("Thou shalt not covet") by many Christians and Jews. Not that I'm advocating Mosaic Law, mind you. But the 10th Commandment has long been my "favorite," because it's the least enforced and the most frequently violated. No wonder it was put last; as a practical matter that makes more of a "suggestion" than a "commandment." By its very existence, it seems to contemplate the fact that we are not perfect and we will covet. But even if it's only a suggestion and not truly enforced, I'd still prefer a society which suggests that it's wrong to covet what your neighbor has than If only such games were kept in European universities! posted by Eric on 10.22.09 at 12:24 AM |
|
October 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
October 2009
September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• "outside the Democratic norms of our society"
• Herding Junkies • Government Finance Reform • The past is an ever-persistent now, more than ever! • why women are victims and men are suspects • The DOD Looks At Energy Security • Beauty and death • A Three Percenter Speaks • Belief In Global Warming Falls Precipitously • "the Constitution explicitly forbids it"
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Ah, envy, a contemporary political principle among those who forever bloviate about ethics.
I've never been rich, yet I've never considered that other people were to be any skin off my backside. I rejoice at the good fortune of anyone who doesn't violate other people's rights.
Nor do I consider that the wealthy owe me or anyone else their treasure, beyond the taxes to maintain a republic whose limited government confines itself to defending the individual rights to life, liberty and property. To force anyone against his will, no matter how wealthy or unfortunate, to support another is a plain violation of those rights--a form of involuntary servitude, or slavery.
Most Americans once believed this, accompanied with a healthy contempt for those on the public trough outside the military. This has changed, and the majority now believes in wealth redistribution conducted by a multitude of "officers, who harass our people and eat out their substance."
This demonstrates the illiberal nature of universal suffrage. Shame on all legislators and jurists who debated away the recognition and protection of our rights, rather than enforce the constitution upon the mob of the intelligentsia.