For some context for you, while you held the first two paragraphs to be self evident, they seemed to wrong, or not even wrong, in every claim to me.
Does a government care? That’s anthropomorphizing an organization of people. Further, the organization may produce results that none of the citizens desire (see 1984).
Another reasonable claim derives from utilitarianism: citizens’ wants should count equally.
The traditional American constitutional view is that no one’s wants count for anything to the government. The government is there to protect your rights, not satisfy your wants.
Others are busy criticizing your interpretations of utilitarianism. I think your priors about the beliefs of others are mistaken again and again.
Further, the organization may produce results that none of the citizens desire (see 1984).
I don’t think 1984 is a good example, since the government in 1984 served the desires of the Party members very well.
On the other hand, I would agree that a government can still end up producing results that none of the citizens actually desire as end goals, mostly due to perverse incentives and lost purposes.
On 1984, I don’t think the O’Brien displays any love for the Party. He’s playing his part, because he has little choice, like everyone else.
I think that’s the point. Everyone can get screwed by the wrong institutions that no one intends. There doesn’t have to be an evil cabal for an evil result. One set of institutions can bring a benevolent invisible hand, and another can bring a boot stomping a human face forever, both in contradiction to the intent of the individual actors involved.
Dennett calls it competence without comprehension, though I’ve never seen him give Adam Smith any credit. The system does what it does, without knowing what it does.
For some context for you, while you held the first two paragraphs to be self evident, they seemed to wrong, or not even wrong, in every claim to me.
Does a government care? That’s anthropomorphizing an organization of people. Further, the organization may produce results that none of the citizens desire (see 1984).
The traditional American constitutional view is that no one’s wants count for anything to the government. The government is there to protect your rights, not satisfy your wants.
Others are busy criticizing your interpretations of utilitarianism. I think your priors about the beliefs of others are mistaken again and again.
I don’t think 1984 is a good example, since the government in 1984 served the desires of the Party members very well.
On the other hand, I would agree that a government can still end up producing results that none of the citizens actually desire as end goals, mostly due to perverse incentives and lost purposes.
On 1984, I don’t think the O’Brien displays any love for the Party. He’s playing his part, because he has little choice, like everyone else.
I think that’s the point. Everyone can get screwed by the wrong institutions that no one intends. There doesn’t have to be an evil cabal for an evil result. One set of institutions can bring a benevolent invisible hand, and another can bring a boot stomping a human face forever, both in contradiction to the intent of the individual actors involved.
Dennett calls it competence without comprehension, though I’ve never seen him give Adam Smith any credit. The system does what it does, without knowing what it does.