Insanity Wolf would tell you you’re absolutely right.
NEW PS5?
HOW MANY DEAD BABIES DID IT COST?
DOING GOOD ISN’T THE MOST IMPORTANT THING
IT’S THE ONLY THING!
PERFECTION IS COMPULSORY
ALL ELSE IS FORBIDDEN
THERE IS NO END
TO DOING GOOD
RESTING?
REVEALED PREFERENCE!
YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT THE SUFFERING!
YOU MUST DO THE VERY BEST THAT YOU CAN ALL THE TIME, WITHOUT END
IT’S A THEOREM!
YOU CAN’T ARGUE WITH A THEOREM!
And so on.
However, “negative externalities” normally means things like pollution from mines that the mine-owner does not have to pay for, not merely that someone is making game consoles instead of medical equipment. Positive injuries caused by one’s positive actions, not merely a failure to devote all one’s resources to curing the pains of the world.
It all depends on where you draw the baseline: inaction, or perfection. Is the question, am I making people worse off than they would be if I had done nothing? Or is it, am I leaving people less well-off than I might have made them if I had acted as well as possible? There are those who argue the latter, such as Peter Singer, but I always hear underneath the words the shriek of a rabid wolf, and turn my back.
I strong downvoted this, because it doesn’t answer the question and instead seems to me to be making a political point.
Insanity Wolf would tell you you’re absolutely right.
About what? I don’t think I believe any of the things you’re arguing against. I’m just wanting to get a quantitative sense, whether it supports or opposes the political point you’re trying to make.
when I make a purchase, I’m consuming labor and resources that could’ve been used for other things. I and my trade partner may be better off, but there’s a negative externality of using up some of civilization’s finite productive capacity.
That is, there is a negative externality of production, consisting of not using those resources in any of the other, better ways that they might. And I pointed out where this leads.
I disagree that believing there’s a negative externality of production leads to the position you’re arguing against—for instance, I might think the negative externality is very small compared to the positive gains from trade. But I appreciate you pointing out exactly where you disagree with my framing.
Insanity Wolf would tell you you’re absolutely right.
NEW PS5?
HOW MANY DEAD BABIES DID IT COST?
DOING GOOD ISN’T THE MOST IMPORTANT THING
IT’S THE ONLY THING!
PERFECTION IS COMPULSORY
ALL ELSE IS FORBIDDEN
THERE IS NO END
TO DOING GOOD
RESTING?
REVEALED PREFERENCE!
YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT THE SUFFERING!
YOU MUST DO THE VERY BEST THAT YOU CAN ALL THE TIME, WITHOUT END
IT’S A THEOREM!
YOU CAN’T ARGUE WITH A THEOREM!
And so on.
However, “negative externalities” normally means things like pollution from mines that the mine-owner does not have to pay for, not merely that someone is making game consoles instead of medical equipment. Positive injuries caused by one’s positive actions, not merely a failure to devote all one’s resources to curing the pains of the world.
It all depends on where you draw the baseline: inaction, or perfection. Is the question, am I making people worse off than they would be if I had done nothing? Or is it, am I leaving people less well-off than I might have made them if I had acted as well as possible? There are those who argue the latter, such as Peter Singer, but I always hear underneath the words the shriek of a rabid wolf, and turn my back.
I strong downvoted this, because it doesn’t answer the question and instead seems to me to be making a political point.
About what? I don’t think I believe any of the things you’re arguing against. I’m just wanting to get a quantitative sense, whether it supports or opposes the political point you’re trying to make.
You wrote this:
That is, there is a negative externality of production, consisting of not using those resources in any of the other, better ways that they might. And I pointed out where this leads.
I disagree that believing there’s a negative externality of production leads to the position you’re arguing against—for instance, I might think the negative externality is very small compared to the positive gains from trade. But I appreciate you pointing out exactly where you disagree with my framing.