Jessald's Waterfall
You keep using the phrase "marginal utility" as though it means "utility". This tells me you don't understand what the "marginal" part means. But since I've already tried to explain it twice, I'll just let that go.
You're sort of right that we can't measure utility precisely. However, we can approximate it. For example, in the vast majority of cases, we know that when people are starving, they value food more highly than a yacht. You don't need numbers to know that. It's obvious. We can use that judgment to conclude that giving food to a thousand starving people would carry greater utility than giving a yacht to a rich person (at least in the short term).
Furthermore, in theory we could measure utility exactly. It just comes down to neurons firing. The amount of subjective value obtained from a hamburger vs a yacht could be measured through some extremely complicated equation. The number may be too hard for us to find, but it does exist. And even if we can't determine the exact value of a given thing to a given person, through careful study, we can bring our approximations closer and closer to the true value.
I mean, say I kicked someone in the balls. Would it be reasonable for me to say the other guy's suffering was meaningless because it couldn't be precisely quantified?
Food is not so valuable to an anorexic person.
Yes, yes, obviously the rules don't apply to the mentally ill. But the vast majority of people are not mentally ill. Besides, even anorexics value food significantly, or else they would starve to death. Anyway, you're missing the point.
This is the value of this thing for everyone...
No, that's not what I'm saying. Diminishing marginal utility just means the value of each additional thing drops as you get more it. The "absolute" value is irrelevant. It seems like you're not really understanding the concept or marginal utility, and if you can't grasp it then we're not going to be able to move forward here...
It's dictatorial and I rather die than live under a dictatorial regime.
No, Joe... the amount of coercion done by the government lies in a spectrum with anarchy on one end and totalitarianism on the other. You can't just point to any act of coercion and claim dictatorship.
What? I'm not sure I really understand your argument. I think what you're trying to say is:
1) People value things differently.
2) Therefore the concept of "value" is meaningless.
3) Therefore you can't say food is more valuable than a yacht.
It's true that some people like watching basketball and others don't, therefore the ability to watch a basketball game can hold more utility for one person than another. But there are some things that are universally valued by all people. Food, for example. Food will always be more valuable to a starving person than a yacht to a rich person.
The more apples you eat, the less you want. The value of each additional dollar drops as you get more of them. Marginal utility is a well defined economic concept.
Let me rephrase: the fact that people will always want more is irrelevant to the question of whether stealing is acceptable in certain situations (because it avoids a greater evil).
As far as the billionaire, if he can't buy that yacht because he just had to pay a million dollars worth of taxes, then the "marginal utility of that money" did NOT drop!
You don't seem to understand the concept of marginal utility...
It's like eating apples. If you're really craving an apple you might be willing to pay a dollar for one. But after you eat it, you're craving is mostly satisfied. So you would only be willing to pay, say 75 cents for another one. If you ate a couple more after that, you would probably start to get sick of apples and the amount you would pay for another one would start to approach 0. Get it?
If you go from zero to a million dollars that means you can get food, a house with air conditioning and heat, a car, the ability to support a family, healthcare, etc, etc.
If you go from a billion to 1.1 billion you get a yacht.
Which of the two carries more subjective value?
It's not that we are greedy...
Wait, so you're a rich person now?
Says who?...That is a subjective statement...
It's not subjective. It follows logically from the facts. Like I said:
"The marginal utility of money drops as you get more of it. A million dollars is worth a lot to a starving person but comparatively little to a billionaire."
There will always be a group of people clamoring for more
Irrelevant. The fact that people will always want more has no bearing on the question of where we should draw the line.
People generally want to get money. Therefore getting money is good. You've got that part right.
But actions generally come with both costs and benefits, and we need to take both into account.
The cost and benefit in your example would depend on how much money each person had. This is because the marginal utility of money drops as you get more of it. A million dollars is worth a lot to a starving person but comparatively little to a billionaire. So, leaving all other variables aside, failure to equalize wealth is bad -- and the greater the wealth disparity, the worse it is. Assuming the two people have an equal amount of money, the transaction would take away more utility from the giver than it would give to the recipient, and therefore the transaction would be a bad one.
Even if it were a rich person and a poor person, handing over a million dollars would be too much. It would drastically eliminate the person's incentive to create value, while alleviating comparatively little suffering.
The best answer is to give just enough to meet minimal quality of life. Which means food, shelter, healthcare and education.
There is a flaw. One act of theft is no big deal, but many acts of theft aggregated together are a big deal. Stick enough raindrops together and you get an ocean.
Same thing with preventable deaths. One death isn't so bad, but many deaths are indicative of a systematic problem.
Yes those are the costs. The benefits on the other hand include (I'm talking about unemployment here):
Alleviates short-term hardship for those laid off.
People are less likely to get stuck in crappy jobs.
Allows people to spend more time finding work and less dealing with basic survival issues.
Mitigates the wealth concentrating effects of capitalism.
Controls inflation. (link)
Stimulates the economy. (link)
I don't see how you can judge that the evils of slightly disincented job-seekers and mild taxation outweigh the listed benefits.
Death is no big deal because everyone dies. Non sequitur. The fact that death happens to everyone doesn't change the fact that it's undesirable for the vast majority of people.
Death for the old is not such a big deal, death for the young is more so.
Hmm, ok. There would still be some logistical problems. But if we had a "homeless tax" that was automatically deducted from your income unless you opted out... that might work. It might be interesting to see how much money we would end up with if all taxes were optional like that...
Still, aside from homelessness, we also ought to provide healthcare and education. Those cost money too. Asking liberals to bear the weight of society's welfare alone is asking for too much.
Taking a little from those who have a lot is not a big deal. The benefits outweigh the costs.
Stealing is worse than letting someone die.
Ok, I just wanted to hear you say that explicitly.
You're obviously wrong on that point (and I think you know it) but I'll leave it at that for now.
your example is flawed because...
It was just a thought experiment, meant to get a better understanding of underlying principles.
Average IQ has risen steadily over the last hundred years. Therefore Joe's argument is bunk.
$9500 actually.
http://www.google.com/
Don't worry, I know math is hard for conservatives ;)
Everybody knows that government is inefficient, but there's just no better way to deal with this kind of problem.
