Politics is a zero sum game in which you spend 500 billion dollars to no avail except for forcing your opponent to spend 510 to win. Millions if people are already trying to win this zero sum game already. Might as well ask “why not just win the World Series of poker, then use that money to fund Miri?”
I don’t think this is true in most political contexts. Political activity is often positive-sum or negative-sum.
People do make compromises that improve total utility. Special interests demanding special handling aren’t always wrong—sometimes they do have special concerns that can be met cheaply, and that ought to be.
Conversely, political process can be negative sum. It sometimes results in inefficiencies—either rent-seeking or awkward half-measures that produce less utility than if one faction had total control.
If politics is a zero sum game, why are some political entities so incredibly more productive than others? Do you think US politics has NOTHING to do with US GDP?
If there is a factory, it is productive. The owner of the factory gets the proceeds. If I try to get ownership of the factory from you, that is a zero sum game.
Public policy, economic activity, lawmaking, are not zero sum. It is the democratic process of taking power that is Zero sum.
Public policy, economic activity, lawmaking, are not zero sum. It is the democratic process of taking power that is Zero sum.
If you abstract away from power-taking the policy debate and differences which are such an important part of how these elections are campaigned, then yes, politics is zero sum.
If you abstract away from property-taking the policy differences in running factories, than factories could be stolen or nationalized in a political process with no reduction or increase in national income or production as a result.
Most of us think we know that strong and consistent property law is required to achieve high returns from capital, i.e., that the way capital is deployed and factories are run is NOT divorced from how the ownership of factories is determined. Most of us think we know that strong and consistent laws protecting a significant portion of return on investment is required to get the most out of factories.
Is there any reason to think it makes more sense to divorce policy differences from the aspect of politics which is zero-sum than it does to divorce how a factory is run from the methods under which its ownership is determined? That is, is a model that treats politics as zero-sum too falwed to use for much?
Politics is not a game at all, never mind zero-sum. Politics is the acquisition and exercise of power in a society.
I am also not sure that LW is against involvement in politics. LW doesn’t like to discuss politics for well-known reasons. On the other hand, skills of most people on LW and skills necessary to succeed in politics are… not well-matched.
Politics is a zero sum game in which you spend 500 billion dollars to no avail except for forcing your opponent to spend 510 to win. Millions if people are already trying to win this zero sum game already. Might as well ask “why not just win the World Series of poker, then use that money to fund Miri?”
I don’t think this is true in most political contexts. Political activity is often positive-sum or negative-sum.
People do make compromises that improve total utility. Special interests demanding special handling aren’t always wrong—sometimes they do have special concerns that can be met cheaply, and that ought to be.
Conversely, political process can be negative sum. It sometimes results in inefficiencies—either rent-seeking or awkward half-measures that produce less utility than if one faction had total control.
If politics is a zero sum game, why are some political entities so incredibly more productive than others? Do you think US politics has NOTHING to do with US GDP?
If there is a factory, it is productive. The owner of the factory gets the proceeds. If I try to get ownership of the factory from you, that is a zero sum game.
Public policy, economic activity, lawmaking, are not zero sum. It is the democratic process of taking power that is Zero sum.
If you abstract away from power-taking the policy debate and differences which are such an important part of how these elections are campaigned, then yes, politics is zero sum.
If you abstract away from property-taking the policy differences in running factories, than factories could be stolen or nationalized in a political process with no reduction or increase in national income or production as a result.
Most of us think we know that strong and consistent property law is required to achieve high returns from capital, i.e., that the way capital is deployed and factories are run is NOT divorced from how the ownership of factories is determined. Most of us think we know that strong and consistent laws protecting a significant portion of return on investment is required to get the most out of factories.
Is there any reason to think it makes more sense to divorce policy differences from the aspect of politics which is zero-sum than it does to divorce how a factory is run from the methods under which its ownership is determined? That is, is a model that treats politics as zero-sum too falwed to use for much?
This is assuming you’re trying to do politics yourself instead of just deciding who to support.
Politics is not a game at all, never mind zero-sum. Politics is the acquisition and exercise of power in a society.
I am also not sure that LW is against involvement in politics. LW doesn’t like to discuss politics for well-known reasons. On the other hand, skills of most people on LW and skills necessary to succeed in politics are… not well-matched.