There is this funky "rule" in Ec 101 that one may never add utility curves.
But, in the real world, the 51% may choose to do something intolerable to the 49%.
A true "bug in democracy".
By the way, these sorts of observations have links to critical race theory (a term that most people have no idea what it means ...). Defending Eve's rights, as part of a minority with a very strong opinion, is a tough one.
In standard practice you assign utility curves to individuals which can be demonstrated by what choices the individual makes / will make.
However, when there are two people the "utility curve" model doesn't work so well because you cannot similarly measure how much someone dislikes something vs how much someone else likes it.
This is a standard Kahn & Tav sorta inefficiency that creates things like strikes at the workplace.
I see from your link that you argue against this idea, but adding utility curves is outside the mainstream. Of course, the main argument in favor of money is that money is a vehicle for solving the problem, but social justice warriors tend to look askance at solely money based ways of resolving differences.
I could debate with you about harsanyi, and it is somewhat relevant to sam's blog and democracy, but the main problem with this approach is that I cannot trust what person X says about what they would do it they were person Y.
of course not. suppose we have:
alice: x5 y4
bob x5 y4
eve x2 y5
a majority prefers x but y has a greater total utility.
Ah right.
There is this funky "rule" in Ec 101 that one may never add utility curves.
But, in the real world, the 51% may choose to do something intolerable to the 49%.
A true "bug in democracy".
By the way, these sorts of observations have links to critical race theory (a term that most people have no idea what it means ...). Defending Eve's rights, as part of a minority with a very strong opinion, is a tough one.
I don't know what you mean that you don't add utility "curves". social utility is just the sum of individual utilities.
https://link.medium.com/hd13R3fk3yb
this is an Ec 101 kinda thing.
In standard practice you assign utility curves to individuals which can be demonstrated by what choices the individual makes / will make.
However, when there are two people the "utility curve" model doesn't work so well because you cannot similarly measure how much someone dislikes something vs how much someone else likes it.
This is a standard Kahn & Tav sorta inefficiency that creates things like strikes at the workplace.
I see from your link that you argue against this idea, but adding utility curves is outside the mainstream. Of course, the main argument in favor of money is that money is a vehicle for solving the problem, but social justice warriors tend to look askance at solely money based ways of resolving differences.
I could debate with you about harsanyi, and it is somewhat relevant to sam's blog and democracy, but the main problem with this approach is that I cannot trust what person X says about what they would do it they were person Y.