The argument appeals to the fact that S would tell us to make ourselves believe that it is rational to keep our promises, even when we know that this will be worse for us. Call this belief B. B is incompatible with S,. My Slavery. You and I share a desert island. We are both transparent, and never self-denying. You now bring about one change in your dispositions, becoming a threat-fulfiller.
- Top Authors.
- Meditation on St. Elizabeth.
- Just another NepBay Cloud site.
- Ingresso a Gerusalemme - Wikipedia;
And you have a bomb that could blow the island up. By regularly threatening to explode this bomb, you force me to toil on your behalf. The only limit on your power is that you must leave my life worth living. If my life became worse than that, it would cease to be better for me to give in to your threats.
How can I end my slavery? It would be no good killing you, since your bomb will automatically explode unless you regularly dial some secret number. But suppose that I could make myself transparently a threat-ignorer. Foolishly, you have not threatened that you would ignore this change in my dispositions. So this change would end my slavery.
Is my act rational? It is not. But what I am doing is not rational. It is irrational to ignore some threat …. If S told us to believe some other theory, this would not support this other theory. But would it be an objection to S?
S would not be failing in its own terms. S is a theory about practical not theoretical rationality. S may tell us to make ourselves have false beliefs. Suppose that S told everyone to cause himself to believe some other theory. S would then be self-effacing. If we all believed S, but could also change our beliefs, S would remove itself from the scene. Most of my claims could, with little change, cover one group of moral theories.
These are the different versions of Consequentialism, or C. To apply C, we must ask what makes outcomes better or worse. The simplest answer is given by Utilitarianism. This theory combines C with the following claim: the best outcome is the one that gives to people the greatest net sum of benefits minus burdens, or, on the Hedonistic version of this claim, the greatest net sum of happiness minus misery.
Consequentialism appeals to many different principles, it ceases to be a distinctive theory, since it can be made to cover all moral theories. This is a mistake. C appeals only to principles about what makes outcomes better or worse. I shall now describe a different way in which some theory T might be self-defeating. Call T indirectly collectively self-defeating when it is true that, if several people try to achieve their T-given aims, these aims will be worse achieved.
I have assumed that C is indirectly collectively self-defeating. I have assumed that, if we were all pure do-gooders, the outcome would be worse than it would be if we had certain other sets of motives. If this claim is true, C tells us that we should try to have one of these other sets of motives. I also believe that, even if we became convinced that Consequentialism was the best moral theory, most of us would not in fact become pure do-gooders.
It is worth distinguishing C from another form of Consequentialism. As stated so far, C is individualistic and concerned with actual effects. According to C, each of us should try to do what would make the outcome best, given what others will actually do.
Ingresso a Gerusalemme
On this theory, each of us should try to have one of the sets of desires and dispositions which is such that, if everyone had one of these sets, this would make the outcome better than if everyone had other sets. CC does not differ from C only in its claims about our desires and dispositions. The two theories disagree about what we ought to do. Collective Consequentialism is much less demanding. It does not tell me to give the amount that would in fact make the outcome best.
Case One. Clare could either give her child some benefit, or give much greater benefits to some unfortunate stranger. Because she loves her child, she benefits him rather than the stranger. If someone freely does what she believes to be wrong, she is usually open to serious moral criticism. Case Two. Because she loves her child, she saves him, and the strangers all die. My Moral Corruption.
Suppose that I have some public career that would be wrecked if I was involved in a scandal. I have an enemy, a criminal whom I exposed. This enemy, now released, wants revenge. Rather than simply injuring me, he decides to force me to corrupt myself, knowing that I shall think this worse than most injuries. He threatens that either he or some member of his gang will kill all my children, unless I act in some obscene way, that he will film.
If he later sent this film to some journalist, my career would be wrecked. He will thus be able later, by threatening to wreck my career, to cause me to choose to act wrongly. He will cause me to choose to help him commit various minor crimes. I ought to make myself disposed to help him commit his minor crimes.
And it would be wrong for me to cause myself to lose this disposition, since, if I do, my children will be killed. I shall now state together four similar mistakes. Some people claim that, if it is rational for me to cause myself to have some disposition, it cannot be irrational to act upon this disposition. A second claim is that, if it is rational for me to cause myself to believe that some act is rational, this act is rational.
This was shown to be false by the case that I called My Slavery. A third claim is that, if there is some disposition that I ought to cause myself to have, and that it would be wrong for me to cause myself to lose, it cannot be wrong for me to act upon this disposition. The case just given shows this to be false. China, the largest country in the world, has 1. Tuvalu, the smallest country with a seat at the United Nations, has less than 11, people.
Read more at location In recent years the number of independent nations has increased dramatically. The breakup of colonial empires, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and numerous secessions all over the world Read more at location In there were 74 independent countries. Today there are Note : 74 Edit.
More than half are smaller in size than Massachusetts, Read more at location Often regionalism and separatism take relatively peaceful manifestations, as in the case of Quebec or Catalonia. In other cases, as in the Basque region or in the Balkans, separatism has led to violence. Germany and Yemen have reunified, and the European Union is evolving from a free trade area to some form of political integration. These events raise two questions: What determines the size of nations and how does their size change over time? Some authors include ancient empires, medieval theocracies, and Greek and Italian city-states.
In this book we will argue that the sizes of national states or countries are due to trade-offs between the benefits of size and the costs of heterogeneity of preferences over public goods and policies provided by government.
KING OF KINGS UNIUS REI
What are the benefits of large population size? First, the per capita costs of public goods are lower in large countries, Read more at location Second, it is often argued that a large country in terms of population or national product , all other things equal, can better protect itself from foreign aggressions by its greater military power.
Third, the size of a country affects the size of its economy. To the extent that larger economies and larger markets increase productivity, larger countries should be richer. A country integrated in the world economy has the world as its market. Should Texas experience a recession that is more severe than the US average, it would receive fiscal transfers, on net, from the rest of the country….
Fifth, large countries can build redistributive schemes from richer to poorer individuals and regions, thereby achieving distributions of after-tax income that would not be available were its regions acting independently. In principle, as countries become larger, administrative and congestion costs may defeat the benefits of size Read more at location More important is the consideration that in larger countries there are more diverse preferences, cultures, and languages within the population. There was, for example, the argument of Aristotle that a polity should be no larger than a size in which everybody knows personally everybody else.
As noted by Dahl and Tufte , this Greek view of a small polity in which everybody knows each other often resurfaces in later philosophers, such as Montesquieu, Read more at location Note: USA Edit. Madison provided a famous counterargument…. Our hypothesis, which is backed by extensive empirical evidence, is that, on balance, heterogeneity of preferences tends to bring about political and economic costs that are traded off against the benefits of size.
In the opposite extreme where widespread heterogeneity degenerates into an internecine war, a civil society cannot function. The optimal size of a national state is one that reaches the highest level of average welfare and that given certain constraints. It is useful to contrast our discussion of optimality with that of Dahl and Tufte They discuss various trade-offs concerning the size of polities, and they conclude that since there are trade-offs, the optimal size of a country does not exist.
First, we could argue that over time various forces drive institutions in our case political borders toward efficiency. We will contrast optimal solutions with two different concepts of equilibrium: 1 voting equilibria where borders are determined by democratic vote and 2 equilibrium border configurations determined by dictatorial Read more at location We will see how alternative democratic rules might lead to different configurations of borders. After the First World War, the world leaders faced the task, in Versailles, of redesigning country borders in Europe, and as many have argued, they failed.
Many students of Africa believe that inefficient borders have contributed heavily to the economic failures of countries on that continent. The collapse of the Soviet Union in the early s led to a tremendous explosion of number and shape of nations in Eastern and Central Europe. The process of deep economic integration in Western Europe, accompanied by pressures for political decentralization, has called into question the role and function of national states. Note: UE Edit. Every now and then scientific theories of economics and sociology are challenged as disregarding certain particulars.
That, instead, is a merit. One must first obtain a general concept of the thing one is studying, disregarding details, which for the moment are taken as perturbations. Chapter 2 introduces the basic trade-off Read more at location An alternative, and potentially more efficient, organization, as we just mentioned, would be one in which various groups of individuals share certain public goods with some regions and other public goods with other regions.
For example, California might share a currency with Mexico, and army with Oregon, and a supreme court with Nevada. Or, two adjacent cities share a school system, but not an army. The second problem is that it may be impossible for regions to share a public good if they do not also share some other goods, in particular, defense and monopoly of coercion. In chapter 3 we discuss the formation of democratic institutions within countries whose borders can be decided by majority vote, and also the formation of regions that are free to proclaim their independence.
The optimal size is the size that maximizes average welfare. In chapter 4 we carry this discussion forward into the direction of interregional transfers. Chapter 5 considers a world of rent-maximizing governments Leviathans.
Dorothy Turner-Jones con Dudley Sparks and The Eighth Invitation (1) Libros Gratis
Note: CH 5. Large dictatorial empires like the Indian empire, the Ottoman empire, or the Soviet Union served precisely the purpose of providing the elites with rents and power. In chapter 6 we consider the size of the economy. Imagine for a moment a world of complete autarky in which all borders are closed. At the opposite extreme is a world of completely open to trade in goods, factors of production, and financial instruments.
In this world political borders do not delimit markets in any way, Read more at location However, as globalization progresses, we can expect the world to move closer to free trade where the benefits of large country size fade away. Chapters 7 and 8 raise the question of international conflict. Note: CH In a peaceful world any regions considering separation may feel that they will be safe from aggression. But, as the number of seceding countries increases, many more borders must be defended by many more armies.
We discuss how decentralization can, up to a point, substitute for secessions Read more at location Chapters 10 and 11 present empirical evidence for the various arguments developed in the preceding chapters. We find that the size of government is actually inversely related to country size, meaning that the ratio of government spending over gross domestic product GDP is larger in small countries.
We find that the benefit of size depends on the trade regime. Small countries can prosper with free trade, and large countries prosper in closed economies. Chapter 11 presents a historical discussion on the evolution of states, starting from the Italian and Low Country city-states. Whatever that size is, it will be smaller as world markets become larger. To see this, imagine the difficulties a country the size of Singapore would face in the protectionist interwar period?
Chapter 12 deals with present-day European integration. In terms of efficiency, the European Union can offer a set of public goods and policies for which the benefits of size cannot be handled efficiently within country borders. Chapter 13 recapitulates our main argument that democratization, trade liberalization, and reduction of warfare are associated with the formation of small countries, Read more at location Why did the first wave of globalisation lead to political concentration and conflict?
Why did the second wave of globalisation lead instead to political fragmentation, resolved in a more peaceful way? To answer these questions, in a new paper we develop a model to study the interaction between globalisation and political structure Gancia et al. A key premise of our theory is that borders hamper trade and globalisation make borders more costly.
We show that political structure adapts to expanding trade opportunities in a non-monotonic way. In early stages, borders are removed by increasing the size of countries. In later stages, the cost of borders is removed by creating economic unions, and this leads to a reduction in the size of countries.
Moreover, while the incentive to conquer markets through aggression increases with globalisation, international economic unions remove this incentive, thereby paving the way to the rule of diplomacy. Designing political institutions that can optimally adapt may become one of the major challenges faced by modern societies. In order to understand how peaceful America has become, we must consider what truly turbulent times looked like.
With all of our fears of terrorism, the crime waves and riots of the s and the early s were much more destructive. During an eighteen-month period in —, there were more than 2, domestic bombings reported, averaging out to more than five a day. Starting with the Watts clashes in Los Angeles, the country faced a wave of intensely violent and often out-of-control social unrest.
Or consider the Black Panthers. The Panthers were set loose to patrol cities, armed openly with guns in the places where that was legal, with the stated aim of defending black citizens from police aggression. The marches and rallies of the s and s were often massive affairs.
Campuses today are very different places, and they are among the segments of American society where the complacent class exercises its strongest influences. As much as nonviolence was an essential feature of big parts of the civil rights movement, many blacks in the South, including many of the most prominent movement leaders, protected themselves with firearms, in recognition of what a violent and vindictive time they were operating in.
Many of the seminal events of the civil rights movement could not happen today, most of all because society is more bureaucratized, more safety obsessed, and also less tolerant of any kind of disturbance or disruption at all. The NIMBY mentality limits high-density residential housing, wind power, and turbulent protests all the same. Which neighborhood these days wants trouble at its doorstep, especially when real estate values are at stake?
The application of management science to policing has been another reason why riots and rebellion have gone out of favor; their impact is too readily countered and defused. In both cases, the initial police behavior was violent, …. The legal authorities of the city of New York succeeded in defanging the Occupy Wall Street movement with a minimum of fuss. Rather than opting for outright confrontation, and perhaps some publicity victories for the protestors, a decision was made to wait for the winter to shut down the encampments and the protests.
#uniusREI #Governor @UniusRei I am king of Kings
But these were highly legalistic rather than a show of force. Usually, I just pay the too high fares to travel too many hours for a meeting that was too short to warrant the expense. They always seem to find super-amazing deals, no matter when, where or how I want to travel. VIP Travel is a brilliant! Terms and Conditions Disclaimer. Round Trip. To City or Airport. Gary Fan - Hong Kong. I am so glad I did! We used VIP Travel to book our business class tickets to Europe instead of using our regular company. It turns out, my friends were right.