Unvarnished Truth #3: Filters and preconceptions

[Doktor Howl]

The effective solution is that the three of them trade between each other for the things the need. On a large scale, however, people are clawing and scratching to be the guy that everyone goes to for their carrots, or whatever, and everyone wants more than what they really ought to have.

Am I right?

Incorrect.  Now you have to build 3 fires to cook with.  The effective solution is that you pour what everyone has into a pot, stew it, and everybody eats.

It doesn't work on a large scale, because there's a limit to the size of the fire and the pot.  Also, if you continue to centralize beyond a certain point, you have a planned economy (See former Soviet Union for details on how this works out.).  

The point here is that good ideas aren't always scalable.

Now, after a certain point, it does make sense to barter (or buy and sell once you curse yourself with currency), due to the above limitations.  This will work for a while, but then the inevitable happens.  2 internets to whomever can spot the flaw.

[Cramulus]

and why will that solution fail on a large scale?

because it's two dudes and a chick

dude1 knocks of dude2 for fun and profit

[Juana]

I don't think it's an issue of "ought to have", Freeky, so much as what can be done without a) raping the ground in the name of getting more corn or b) damaging other people.

My guess at Dok's flaw is that beyond that limit, the ground-rape or other depletion of the resources commences and everyone's fucked. This is just a guess, since my brain is not working terribly well atm.

Awesome stuff, Dok.

1) Can I post this on my facebook (with due credit and a link back here)? I have a libertarian I've been trying to coax into looking at this kind of thing, and I'd like to think he is capable of being in that 1%. However, he's refused to come here, despite my best efforts because he's a lazy sod.

2) Your comments about certain ideas hitting religious levels really makes sense to me, having seen (and having BEEN) one of those humans obsessed with the free market and libertarianism.

1.  Yes.  ETA:  Lazy libertarians?  Who'd have thought it?   

2.  The lure of it is that it seems to make sense.  The problem is, it requires that humans act rationally for a significant percentage of the time.

Thanks! And he doesn't see the other side, which is what you're bringing up.

[Doktor Howl]

I don't think it's an issue of "ought to have", Freeky, so much as what can be done without a) raping the ground in the name of getting more corn or b) damaging other people.

My guess at Dok's flaw is that beyond that limit, the ground-rape or other depletion of the resources commences and everyone's fucked. This is just a guess, since my brain is not working terribly well atm.

Not quite.  See above.

[Telarus]

Great thread. Still absorbing it.

[hooplala]

Okay, let's assume that three people have primitive resources (wood for cooking, hand tools for agriculture, etc).  One has grown corn, one has grown carrots, and the other has raised some chicken or beef.

If everyone eats only what they've produced, they'll die of malnutrition, eventually.

What is the most efficient solution, and why will that solution fail on a large scale?

Why would each only choose to grow or raise one though?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

This thread is fanfuckingtastic!

Hoopla, since it's a hypothetical scenario, I'm not sure it needs an explanation as to why each guy only grows his specialty, but maybe each guy only knows how to do one and it takes up all his time.

[Freeky]

The effective solution is that the three of them trade between each other for the things the need. On a large scale, however, people are clawing and scratching to be the guy that everyone goes to for their carrots, or whatever, and everyone wants more than what they really ought to have.

Am I right?

Incorrect.  Now you have to build 3 fires to cook with.  The effective solution is that you pour what everyone has into a pot, stew it, and everybody eats.

It doesn't work on a large scale, because there's a limit to the size of the fire and the pot.  Also, if you continue to centralize beyond a certain point, you have a planned economy (See former Soviet Union for details on how this works out.).  

The point here is that good ideas aren't always scalable.

Now, after a certain point, it does make sense to barter (or buy and sell once you curse yourself with currency), due to the above limitations.  This will work for a while, but then the inevitable happens.  2 internets to whomever can spot the flaw.

Is it because if one monkey sees something they want and cannot easily get it, the next option is stealing/killing the other guy and making off with whatever?

[The Wizard]

Will comment later, when have free time. Great work  Dok. 

[Doktor Howl]

Okay, let's assume that three people have primitive resources (wood for cooking, hand tools for agriculture, etc).  One has grown corn, one has grown carrots, and the other has raised some chicken or beef.

If everyone eats only what they've produced, they'll die of malnutrition, eventually.

What is the most efficient solution, and why will that solution fail on a large scale?

Why would each only choose to grow or raise one though?

Um, I was making an analogy.  For example, I am a good millwright, but not a very good lawyer.

[Doktor Howl]

This thread is fanfuckingtastic!

Thanks.  I've been enjoying the hell out of the responses.

[Doktor Howl]

The effective solution is that the three of them trade between each other for the things the need. On a large scale, however, people are clawing and scratching to be the guy that everyone goes to for their carrots, or whatever, and everyone wants more than what they really ought to have.

Am I right?

Incorrect.  Now you have to build 3 fires to cook with.  The effective solution is that you pour what everyone has into a pot, stew it, and everybody eats.

It doesn't work on a large scale, because there's a limit to the size of the fire and the pot.  Also, if you continue to centralize beyond a certain point, you have a planned economy (See former Soviet Union for details on how this works out.).  

The point here is that good ideas aren't always scalable.

Now, after a certain point, it does make sense to barter (or buy and sell once you curse yourself with currency), due to the above limitations.  This will work for a while, but then the inevitable happens.  2 internets to whomever can spot the flaw.

Is it because if one monkey sees something they want and cannot easily get it, the next option is stealing/killing the other guy and making off with whatever?

That's a possibility, but I was thinking more that the earliest and/or most successful farmers wind up with all the land (they aren't making any more, you see), and all the other farmers get to be employees and/or tenant farmers.  The concept of a free market stops dead at this point, before it ever really got started.  Historically speaking, that's about the time feudalism came into vogue (The gold and silver rushes in early American history also come to mind).

From there, it's all down hill, if you're a utilitarian/libertarian.

[Freeky]

Oh, I see now.

[Doktor Howl]

Oh, I see now.

This is what happens when you fill up the whole world with monkeys.

[Richter]

Response to OP, will go back through the discourse later.

The blinders are a solid things to consider, as they're usually the first thing needed and the last mentioned in any consideration of human behavior.  Short version "Assumption is the mother of a proper fuckup."

A few IRL friends are involved with Freemasonry, and in talking with them about it, they openly admit that discussing religion or politics at meetings is strictly FORBIDDEN.  It causes more harm than good to a group of people (Not supporting or running down Masons, ).  Again, draws back just to what you were saying about the blinders.  Politics and religion give some great opportunities for people to stumble onto one of the criteria upon which they WON'T speak to the other person.  Again, not what's good for themselves OR the group, but something they can work around, given proper self recognizance.  

Makes good sense.  Can't wait to see more.