> Complex society is the demonstration of that hypothesis. Misaligned incentives are widespread and corruption and inefficiency are the result.
Of course they are. But aligned self-interest powers co-operation beyond kin relations and altruism.
> "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" works by random chance
Orthogonal concept.
> How to actually get their incentives to align is an extremely unsolved problem
No? It's the story of civilisation. Concepts like taxation; deterrence through corporal punishment, jailing and fines; paying salary for labour; hell, religion–these are all about aligning individual self interests with collective goals.
> best method we know if is to subject them to competition
I'd argue competition is more an optimiser on these primitives. Not a primitive per se.
> Orthogonal concept.
It's the sort of thing people generally mean when they say that someone acting in their own interest can be in your interest, and is the thing which is happening in the example from the thread.
> Concepts like taxation; deterrence through corporal punishment, jailing and fines; paying salary for labour; hell, religion–these are all about aligning individual self interests with collective goals.
And the practical implementations of all of those things are severely flawed to the point of questioning whether most of them are even net positive.
Taxes are supposed to benefit the public, and be paid with some fairness. In practice they go disproportionately to cronies or buying votes from affluent retirees, the tax code is so full of carve outs for special interests that it looks like swiss cheese and various political incentives cause it to impose severe benefits cliffs on lower middle income people that create poverty traps that benefit no one.
The criminal justice system on paper operates based on the rule of law, but the laws are so complex, overlapping and sparsely enforced that it really operates on whether a prosecutor is inclined to charge you with something. The results are mass incarceration and a system that enables a corrupt incumbent to use the threat of prosecution to extract favors.
The principal-agent problem inherent in hiring someone is well-known and is dramatically exacerbated by large organizational hierarchies that put long chains of inaccessible authority between the customer and the person ultimately doing the work.
Religion seems like a long debate but I don't think it would be controversial to assert that there have been issues there.
> I'd argue competition is more an optimiser on these primitives. Not a primitive per se.
Try to imagine any of the others operating without it. You have to pay taxes but have no alternatives on which jurisdiction to live in or who decides how much tax you pay or how the money is spent, what happens? You want to be hired or use the money you earn to buy something but there is only one employer and only one supplier of goods and services, what happens?
> sort of thing people generally mean when they say that someone acting in their own interest can be in your interest, and is the thing which is happening in the example from the thread
It's a single example of temporary alignment. Employment, citizenship and affiliation are non-kinship examples of more-durable bonds.
> the practical implementations of all of those things are severely flawed to the point of questioning whether most of them are even net positive
We can debate that. What we can't debate is whether they work. Complex societies exist and work. Everyone who has a choice makes the choice, dominantly, to stay in them.
> You have to pay taxes but have no alternatives on which jurisdiction to live in or who decides how much tax you pay or how the money is spent, what happens? You want to be hired or use the money you earn to buy something but there is only one employer and only one supplier of goods and services, what happens?
Sure. This is a modifier. It makes these other things work or not. Imagine a system with competition but no taxation. You lose public services. Same for competition without private employment–you're in a totalitarian state with a monopsony on labour.
> Complex societies exist and work.
They certainly exist. Whether they work is rather the question.
> Everyone who has a choice makes the choice, dominantly, to stay in them.
Which people actually have the choice? If a group of people want to stake out a piece of land somewhere -- even if they pay for it -- and then try to operate some kind of self-contained society there without being subject to an existing government's laws or taxes, what happens to them?
There isn't a lot of land on earth which no existing government claims is its jurisdiction.
> Imagine a system with competition but no taxation. You lose public services.
You lose tax revenue. That isn't the same thing.
Suppose nobody is maintaining the road in front of your house and there is a huge pothole, or the road isn't paved to begin with. You and a few of your neighbors, with nobody forcing you to, agree to split the cost of paying to fix it so that people can get to your house. Maybe you even just pay for it yourself because the thing is right in front of your driveway. Attempting to charge a toll or something is pointless because there isn't enough traffic to justify the administrative costs and you just want the pothole gone. Does this have a different set of benefits and trade offs? Sure. Are there still various roads that are open to the public? Yes.
And then you have to ask whether having a third of your neighbors not chip in to hire the paving company costs you more than having the government pay 600% more to have it done as a result of various corruption and administrative overhead.
> Same for competition without private employment–you're in a totalitarian state with a monopsony on labour.
A canonical example of the absence of competition.
> aligned self-interest
The qualifier tells you exactly what you're overlooking. self-interest, aside for some narrow exceptions, is often in conflict with collective interest. 1 Million to me is always better than a 1 Million split with everyone.
> self-interest, aside for some narrow exceptions, is often in conflict with collective interest
Often, but not always. Successful societies amplify that exception. The whole notion of non-kinship based societies rests on mastering this alignment. When it collapses, so does the civilisation.
> 1 Million to me is always better than a 1 Million split with everyone
The benefits of co-operation mean the real trade-off is 1 million split five ways versus 100 to me. This was almost untrue in the age of conquest. It became barely true with industrialisation. It's massively true in the information age.
> The benefits of co-operation mean the real trade-off is 1 million split five ways versus 100 to me. This was almost untrue in the age of conquest. It became barely true with industrialisation. It's massively true in the information age.
The problem here is that it's true of specific things, not specific epochs. If all the government did was collect 5% in taxes from everyone and use the money to prosecute murders and maintain bridges then the result would be a huge net positive. Meanwhile in reality the government takes billions of dollars from ordinary people and gives it to the likes of Lockheed, Oracle and Microsoft.
For the amount of money the US government pays Microsoft for Office subscriptions and the like, it could pay to have an office suite developed and released into the public domain many times over. Instead it uses the incumbent, in turn requiring others to do so in order to have formats compatible with the what the government uses. Who benefits from this other than Microsoft?
Exploitation always provides better ROI than co-operation. Not only is this demonstrated throughout human history but holds true to this day. Go ahead and show me a more profitable industry than diamonds or anything that runs on exploitation even to this day.
How do you come up with this math?
> The benefits of co-operation mean the real trade-off is 1 million split five ways versus 100 to me.