### ### ### ### ### #### ### ### ### #### ### ### ##### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ##### ### ### ########## ### ### ########## ### ### ### ### Underground eXperts United Presents... ####### ## ## ####### # # ####### ####### ####### ## ## ## ## ##### ## ## ## #### ## ## #### # # ####### ####### ####### ## ## ## ## ##### ## ## ## ## ## ## ####### ####### # # ####### ####### ####### [ A Cooperative Society ] [ By Leon Felkins ] ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ Leon Felkins First Serial Rights A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY COMPOSED OF SELFISH INDIVIDUALS A DISASTER IN THE MAKING by Leon Felkins (leonf@ios.com) SUMMARY This essay makes some challenging and somewhat uncomfortable statements about the behavior of individuals in groups. In particular, these statements claim that current efforts to make for a more "social" society are doomed. While a social group, such as ants, can exist in peace and prosperity if their genes dictate social behavior, animals that are genetically predisposed to act individually selfish can never be successfully socialized. An important phenomena is at work here that is not usually addressed in articles on human social problems: For any particular action, an individual's immediate best interests are usually at odds with the long term interests that he or she would accrue from being a member of the group. Further, the individual typically receives the benefits of the group whether he or she participates in the action that generates the benefits or not. This phenomena is often referred to as "The Voter's Paradox" or "The Volunteer's Paradox". Logical philosophers claim that it is a form of "The Prisoner's Dilemma", a much studied phenomena in which the output is not "zero-sum". If this phenomena actually exists - and no one has been able to show that it does not - it dooms the efforts of those who would socialize our society. Several examples illustrating this phenomena are given. Our leaders have successfully instilled in the minds of many in our society the desire to act in the group's best interest - which they do, at least part of the time. Unfortunately many members still act selfishly and cannot be convinced to act otherwise. Finally, the article shows that we are "programmed" to take certain actions to change or correct societal ills. These are mostly useless. For example, voting. While we are taught to use the vote to correct our problems, the article shows that an individual will find that his or her vote is absolutely useless. If change is desired, something much more powerful than a vote must be used. Practically, the individual can do nothing to correct the oppressions of the government without making heroic sacrifices that have little chance of success. _________________________________________________________________________ A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY COMPOSED OF SELFISH INDIVIDUALS A DISASTER IN THE MAKING Society in the USA and many other countries is going though the stress and chaos of changing from individualistic driven behavior to socialistic driven behavior which appears to have started gaining momentum during or just before World War II. At the same time, we are witnessing an unprecedented increase in social problems, particularly crime and dependency on welfare. Although it is rarely carefully and seriously discussed, it seems evident that the majority of the people in these countries favor a more socialistic society. Actually, they been sold the benefits of socialism and have not been fully informed of the costs. The purpose of this essay is to examine the consequences to the individual in a society that cannot seem to decide whether it wants to be eagles or ants. There is much ringing of hands and heated exchanges over the massive crime, health, and welfare problems we have. Both liberals and conservatives keep babbling that if "we would only do right", "care more for each other", "follow traditional family values", etc., etc., our problems would all be solved. Unfortunately, that is all a bunch of nonsense - as I will try to show. To do that, I must take a realistic and, some would say, hard view of society and its mores. I am aware that this is not a popular approach in our time, but I would say that unless the reader can show that an alternate approach is better, then he or she should hear me out. The actions we take as we struggle through each day, tend to be driven by either self interestor group interest. According to scientists, while our genes would have us always look after our own self interest, we can be taught to look after the interests of the group we belong to.1 For the most part, members of the animal kingdom are always acting selfishly. But there are exceptions. The ants, wasps and bees - the "social insects" seem to act for the group's best interest rather than the individual's interests. In particular, soldier ants routinely sacrifice their lives to save the colony. It is hard to see how this could be anything but promoting the welfare of the group over the individual. What about humans? Do we humans generally act as individuals (like eagles) or do we act as members of a large organism (like ants)? That is, are we motivated to look after the best interests of the society we belong to or do we just try to look after our own best interests? The answer has to be "both", since we do not just follow our instincts but also are motivated by what we have learned. This paper will examine some of the difficulties that result from the confusion and conflict between looking after the interests of the self and looking after the interests of the group. Let me summarize some of the ideas that this article will explore: 1. For a given situation, the actions taken by an individual are likely to be quite different based on whether the individual is acting to promote the best interests of the group or the individual. 2. A relationship or correlation between the individual's interest and the group's interest doe not necessarily exist. That is, a given action may benefit the individual or the group or both or neither. 3. While we are instinctively selfish, throughout our lives we are daily taught to think and act to maximize the welfare of the group - a source of much confusion and grief in today's society. 4. Since selfishness is genetic, you can count on everyone acting selfishly. On the other hand, altruistic behavior is learned and therefore will be more sporadic in application since some people are more susceptible to teaching than others. 5. Once the group has decided to act like ants, an individual that tries to act like an eagle is subject to getting his/her wings clipped severely. Many would say that the third statement describes an approach to life, maximizing the welfare of the group, that could be quite beneficial for everyone. Our selfish instincts are moderated by some learned concepts that make life nicer and more pleasant for everyone. Unfortunately, this approach appears to have some surprisingly troublesome and possibly unsolvable problems associated with it. Still the leaders of society apparently feel that the approach of restraining instinctive actions and augmenting them with concepts that are good for the group is the best approach to general happiness. In spite of much evidence to the contrary, they have been quite successful in promoting this concept. So, while we may be born selfish, we are brought into line by society and are taught to conform and to act like so many ants in an anthill. Strangely many people, while thinking and acting like ants, still proclaim to be individualists! I am continually amazed and puzzled by the popularity of movies and books, in which the hero is an individualist, by people who in their own lives blindly and meekly follow the dictates of what is best for the group. Group Behavior Vs Individual Behavior When we proceed with some activity that costs us time, money or other resources, we expect to get some return. Depending on the action, that return could be to me directly (like planting my own garden) or indirectly just from being a member of the group (like voting). When we take an action that we (or possibly our close friends and family) directly benefit from, it is easy to assess the benefit to cost ratio. But when we do something for the collective group - in which we will benefit from as a group member - the situation is much more complicated. It would seem reasonable to wonder how the benefits derived from being a member of the group compare to the cost to the individual making the contribution? Not so good it seems, most of the time. Of course, there are some actions that promote the individual's self interest that can also be good for the group (like letting the community help themselves to the vegetables in my garden). Another complication that really should be mentioned is that whether an action is selfish or altruistic is often confused by hidden motives or interests. For example, while it may appear that the politician is trying to help us by sending some "pork" our way, he most likely is being motivated by self interest. In any case, it seems that we have to chose between acting to help ourselves or to help the society we belong to. It is usually one or the other. To illustrate some of these complications I will provide an example or two: Suppose the leaders of society say that we should quit buying products made in China as they are alleged to use slave labor there. We will look at this from the two perspectives that are under study here. We must do so very precisely and we must not mix the two. The GROUP VIEW: We look at the situation from the point of view of maximizing the "good" to society. If China is employing slave labor and if all of society quits buying the product, they will most likely cease the practice, resulting in a better society (since slave labor is considered to be of more harm than the good that comes from having cheap products). As a member of society, I would benefit from this embargo on their products. The INDIVIDUAL VIEW: I need a certain product - let us say a new electric drill. I can buy one made in China for $30.00, that otherwise might cost $50. This is a significant direct benefit to me. But some will say, that since I am a member of the world society, I, along with the rest of the world will suffer from this purchase. Not so. There will be no significant impact on the situation of the slaves in China, from my action! My action of buying or not buying is just too insignificant and slavery will continue or cease regardless of what I do. Many more similar examples could be presented. This apparent paradox, in which the cost of a given action to an individual can be considerable and yet have no significant impact on the benefits accrued to the individual from being a member of the group is called the "Voter's Paradox" by philosophers. It has been a perplexing problem to some of our greatest thinkers. It seems to have no solution.2 If you are still not convinced of the dichotomy of the individual's interest vs. the group's interest, try this simple thought experiment: Suppose you belong to a group that makes large monetary investments which return a 2 to 1 gain over the amount invested. The contributions are voluntary while the reward is distributed equally. Suppose there are 100 members and you contribute $1000. As a member, like everyone else, you will get a reward of $20 ($1000 X 2 / 100). As an individual, you will be out $1000, leaving you a net of $980. Thinking like an individual, you must conclude that this action, while good for the group, is bad for the individual. In fact, this is true for most "contributions" that you daily make to society - especially in the form taxes. It should be emphasized that my interests and society's interests typically have essentially no connection. For a given situation, the impact on society and the individual is often complex, requiring careful examination to determine the outcome. It is paradoxical that there are situations in which certain behavior improves the lot of all members of society but the particular individual can reap even better rewards if the rest of society follows that certain behavior while he or she takes a different route! An example is the case where everyone is honest but me. I get the benefits of the trust resulting from people being honest but can reap far greater benefits by taking advantage of that trust and being dishonest. That is known as the "freerider" problem. See the references in the notes if you would like to examine this fascinating paradox further. What I would like to concentrate on here is the phenomena of the individual blindly following "what is best for society" rather than "what is best for him or her". That is, should we think and act like an ant or like a eagle? Ant-like Vs Eagle-like Behavior: Examples The soldier ant calmly and willingly goes to its death to defend the colony. The eagle does not. Most of the members of the animal kingdom seem to be driven by individual selfishness even though the actions taken are often beneficial to the group as a whole. The interested reader can follow this subject in more detail in books and articles on evolution by Dawkins and others.3 Humans use both approaches with some success and some failures. There are many examples of our behavior that show that we humans do sacrifice as individuals to promote the best interests of the group. It is apparent that our leaders have been very successful in teaching us to act as a group when our genes tell us look after our own best interests. Some examples of successful social (ant-like) behavior of humans: 1. Military combat duty Most people, when called to serve, will go to their deaths in a war action that they do not understand or have not investigated its validity. They pay with their deaths for something that often is only serving the ambitions of a few politicians or the hysteria of a mis-informed public. 2. Welfare programs We contribute greatly to programs that we personally get little or no return from. 3. For the most part, we don't steal and lie even if we could get away with it. 4. We fund schools, art, culture, etc. at great expense where the benefits are poor compared to what we could do with the investment for ourselves. Many more examples of group behavior could be presented. Of course, some group behavior is good and some is bad (and we are not likely to agree on which is which!). Examples of individualistic (eagle-like) behavior overriding group (ant-like) behavior: 1. Reduction of the National Debt It ain't going to happen. Why? Because my community, as represented by my community's politicians, will thwart your attempts to cut back on expenditures that are beneficial to us. Each community is acting like an individual in this case and looking after the community's interest rather than the nation as a group. 2. Government waste When a government employee wastes money, we all lose - including the individual doing the wasteful spending. After all, he/she pays taxes too. Unfortunately, the cost of his/her taxes is insignificant to the rewards he/she gets directly for the wasteful spending. 3. Stock Market Obviously a game of self interest. What profit you make, other people are losing and vice versa. 4. Sex Usually motivated by self interests. It is not always clear that the rules for sexual activity that limit self interest are really in the best interests of the group, however. 5. Medical While it is true that I would like for health costs of the group to be reduced, when I am sick I would like the best care that the group can afford - if you don't mind. As with the examples of group interest behavior, there are examples of both good and bad for self-interest behavior. Scientists and philosophers say that we are naturally motivated by self behavior and that looking after the group's interest has to be learned. Unfortunately, much danger lies in the teaching. How we are Taught to Think and Act like Ants Our social leaders (church, schools, politics, the press, etc.) recognize the value of having each individual act in such a way as to benefit the group as a whole. As mentioned above, it would be of great benefit to all the members of society if the members were honest, did not steal, etc. Unfortunately, it is all too obvious to most individuals over three days old that it is easy to take advantage of this situation - by being dishonest - with potentially great personal rewards. Our leaders recognize this and try to convince or deceive the individuals into thinking and acting in ways that make society better for everyone (or at least, better for the leaders). But it is extremely difficult to pull this off. Every youngster knows that there are immediate and direct rewards for lying. While she may realize that in the long run it would be good if we all could trust each other, she is about to get severe punishment if she admits that she skipped school and spent the day partying with her friends. So what do the leaders do about this paradox? The political officials try to counter "aberrant" (not good for the group) behavior by threat of punishment. As the situation stands before outside interference, if no one steals property we would all be better off but there is a great temptation to the individual to steal since he or she would benefit greatly. This can be countered somewhat by imposing the threat of potential punishment for the person that gets caught. Now the rational individual has to weigh the rewards of the theft against the possibility of being caught and punished - which could greatly exceed the value of the theft. There are a couple of problems that diminish the success of this approach. One is that it is a fact proven by research that people have a difficult time rationally assessing probabilities. While direct response is easy to assess, the chance that something may happen, no matter how good or bad, is not assessed very well by most people. People still have sex with strangers even though there is a chance of contracting the deadly AIDS disease or getting shot by a jealous husband. On the other hand a person will usually be inhibited if there is obviously an immediate minor consequence - such as getting punched in the nose. Another problem is that knowledgeable people are more skeptical of the effectiveness of crime control methods than the ignorant. While in the past, the mass of individuals might easily be deceived into believing that law enforcement was all-wise and powerful, the majority of individuals, being better educated, are now somewhat cynical about the whole business. The church leaders try to solve the problem by the simple and effective technique of convincing folks that even though you may pull off your theft or lie undetected, you can't hide from God. We are taught that HE is always watching us. Great idea, but unfortunately does not work on those that are not into religion and, again, is much less effective on educated and knowledgeable people. Another effective tool that the church and others use is to convince the individual to feel guilty when they violate a rule. This extremely effective tool has been picked up on by the more "liberal" members of our society and used with great success. That this method of using guilt to control can get out of hand is easily observed at the universities trying to outdo each other with "political correctness". The press and the educational establishment use all of the above to help control aberrant behavior but primarily use the last one, the "control by strings of guilt". Without reference to religion, we are daily bombarded by the concept that it is "wrong" to steal, lie or to have unapproved sex. The success of this approach is obvious as most individuals do feel guilty if they commit such acts even if they don't know why and are not religious. So, our educational, political and church leaders constantly try to pound into our psychological makeup that "we should not steal or lie", "we should not have improper sex", "we should be fair to each other", " we should share our good fortune with the less fortunate", "we should not have a second thought about sacrificing our lives to a war that may only exist to further some politician's career", "we should not indulge in unapproved drugs or alcohol", "we should not break the speed limit", etc., etc. Without passing judgment on whether any of this is "right" or "wrong" (much of it clearly benefits society), it is obvious that the methods for implementing "group think" have had significant success with the mass of our society. Unfortunately, these methods do not work on a significant portion of the members of our society - to our great expense and aggravation. Further, we should recognize that while these methods may generally work for the good of society, these same tools may also be applied to encourage actions that may not be in our best interests. Examples already given hint at this: eg, while it is good for society to convince everyone not to steal, it is bad for society to have people go to war to get maimed or killed just to further the ambitions of politicians. Predicting Group Behavior It seems obvious that predicting what a group does is simply the act of predicting what the individuals in the group do. That is, group behavior follows from what the individual action. Well, it may be obvious but it is apparent that a lot of folks - particularly our leaders - tend to think in terms of making the "group" do the right thing. It does not and will not work! If you want the group to act in a certain fashion, you must provide incentive for the individuals in the group to act in the desired fashion. Government employees are going to continue to waste, goof off and spend us into oblivion unless we provide incentive for the individuals in the government to act otherwise. Education is going to continue to go to hell unless we can make it attractive for the individuals involved in education (educators, students, parents - at least) to act otherwise. Crime is going to continue to increase unless we find some way to make it attractive for the police, the judges, the criminals to want to personally contribute to the elimination of crime. Universities are going to continue to turn out politically active but work-avoiding air heads if we can't come up with a way to make the professors, the administration, and the students personally want to correct that situation. For example, how do we stop excessive waste and spending by our government? At the present time, government employees in management positions are rewarded for spending. There is no real reward for not spending. Government employees frantically search for ways to spend money at the end of the fiscal year so they will not be in the embarrassing position of not spending all their budget. It is very important to realize that they do that because they are rewarded for spending. You can moan and rant all you want to at this mythological thing called government but nothing will happen until you direct your attention to the individuals that make up the government. And so on for all the rest of the groups mentioned. So, the rewards and/or punishments must be directed to the individual rather than the group. It will do no good to make a law that requires "congress" to stay within the limits of a specified national debt. But providing incentives to the members of congress to reduce their personal spending would work. Of course, that is not easy, but who said it was going to be. It just happens to be the only solution. It will do no good to rant at the general population that they ought to have "family values", but it might help if the individuals in these families were rewarded for following these values (whatever they may be?) If you want to correct such ills as the Savings and Loan mess then make sure there is not an incentive to the managers of these institutions to spend other peoples money recklessly. And so on. The Myth that You can do Something about it While the leaders have successfully indoctrinated most of us into looking out for the group, one of the confusing myths constantly promoted and readily consumed by our society (which may be part of the overall strategy to keep us "playing the game", I suppose), is that you are a free individual and if things are not to your liking, you can do something about it. Not really. The fact is, the individual can do no more to change a burdensome societal ill in a social democracy than he/she can in a dictatorship. Sadly, in some ways, the situation is worse in a democracy, because in a dictatorship you know you can do nothing, but in a free society you are deceived into thinking you can do something. Practically, you cannot. From discussions on this topic I have had with my friends, I have come to realize that this is a difficult concept to follow. The following arguments are easier to understand if examined in terms of the impact on an individual rather than the impact on society. Imagine yourself as the victim of a robbery and not just a member of a group that has a certain average number of robberies per month. Passing a harsher crime law (maybe, by eliminating a few more rights) may reduce the statistical parameter, "number of robberies per month", but does nothing to alleviate your suffering, the person that just got robbed. That is what we are trying to focus on here - the individual's plight - not the statistics for the group. Examples? Here are a few: 1. What can you do about the Forfeiture laws passed a few years ago that apparently are in violation of the Bill of Rights? More specifically, what could you do if you were the victim of the application of these laws? Very little. There are many who have lost all they own to this scam and I'm sure that if they could do anything about it, they would. As far as changing the laws, you, the individual, could just as easily change the courses of events in the former Yugoslavia. 2. What could you do if you were called to fight in another "Vietnam" type war? 3. What can you do if your community decides by majority vote to raise taxes 50% to pay for building a home for the "motivationally impaired" citizens? Or worse, establish a law to allow taking of property of those that "motivationally excel" to be distributed among the "motivationally impaired" (and their agents, of course!). 4. What can you do about it if you own an abortion clinic and your clinic and your home is constantly under harassment by a bunch of anti-abortion extremists? 5. What can you do about it if your community chooses to give "equal time" to the religious view of creationism and have the textbooks modified to that effect? Taking your children out of school doesn't completely solve the problem, you surely realize. The fact is you can do essentially nothing to change some dictate from the government, be it federal or local, that is impacting your personal life whether you live in a democracy or a dictatorship. A comparable falacy is the idea that your local highschool basketball team can win the state tournament if "they will only try hard enough". What if every team "tries hard enough"? Apparently trying hard cannot insure success. Think about it. What can you do if society decides to allow seizure of property from individuals "suspected" of a crime - without a trial? What can you do about it if the government decides to turn deadly criminals loose because of "inhumane" treatment that is provided by overcrowded jails? Zilch! And just like the example of the highschool basketball tournament, even heroic effort is likely to fail. If you think you can correct any of the many oppressions of the government, I would be interested in hearing the details. Yes, I am aware that there are some instances of some individuals, with great personal sacrifice and expense, successfully correcting a societal ill. The odds of success are about the same as winning the lottery - which certainly does happen, but I wouldn't stake my life on it. One more example, examined in some detail: I don't like paying taxes to support those citizens hit by a natural disaster (actually, I don't like any compulsory "charity"). Folks in Oakland, California hit by earthquake or fire should take care of their own problems - in my view. You may not agree - but nevertheless, allow me to express my views just for the purpose of providing an example. As far as I am concerned, where you live (at least when you become an adult) is a matter of your own choosing. Risks from natural disasters are fairly well known for every area and I assume the people living in each area have taken them into consideration. Being a conservative about such things, I chose not to risk the welfare of myself and my family by living in these high risk areas. The tradeoff, of course, is that the area I have chosen to live in is not nearly as exciting and beautiful as the San Francisco Bay area. Nevertheless, that's my choice. On the other hand I might change that choice if all of you generous taxpayeres guarantee to compensate me for any natural disasters I might be subjected to. I might just start living the good life in Oakland instead of the healthy, relatively hazard free, but sometimes dull life in Fayetteville, Tennessee! You may not wish to make that offer, but the federal government has gladly done just that. As you know, for the most insignificant of disasters, the Feds now rush in with piles of money for the natives with much political fanfare. It is an opportunity for vote buying that will have little opposition from the press or the rest of the country. Only the most crass and cruel person would object to the government giving money to someone who just had their home blown away. In any case, the Feds forcibly take money from me and send it to the saps in San Francisco and I have absolutely no choice about it.4 Sure, I could protest. Sure, I could vote against it (not sure how). Sure I could write letters to newspapers - write my congressman - vote for a different politician - etc. But would any of that really do anything? No, none of these personal activities have any significant effect. If there is general support for such channeling of tax money to those who live in high risk areas, but I disagree with it, my desires will go unheeded. But what if I refuse to pay? Simple, I spend my life in jail! In fact, to take any significant action to thwart this oppression would destroy my life style. And with little chance of success of correcting the problem. A rational person must conclude that I can do no more about it that I can if a ruthless thug is holding a gun to my head demanding by wallet. One more thing: one of the biggest myths promoted by all those in power is that if I don't like something to correct it, all I have to do is vote. Crap! There is nothing more certain in this world than the fact that my vote absolutely and positively will have no effect! While I might be successful (but not likely) in convincing others to vote in massive quantities to correct a bad law, my individual vote will do nothing.5 Except to make me feel complacent - if I understand what most people are saying. It is a farce to say that you can't complain about law X if you didn't vote in the election (for or against politician Y). First off your vote didn't count - the politician would have been elected with or without your vote. Second, what she does after election is not under your control. If she is honest, she would go by the majority (this is a democracy, supposedly). If she is less than honest, she will go by whoever screams the loudest, hurts the most, helps the most, pays the most, or whatever. Unless you have complete control of one or more of those things, you, the individual, can forget it. Conclusions What is to be made of all this? If nothing can be done about it what is the value of recognizing these facts? First, I believe that an informed life is a better life. While a case can be made that living in this world can be enhanced by remaining ignorant, I personally do not care to live under delusions and to blindly follow myths. I recognize that there are arguments for living a life in which reality is greatly augmented by the imagination and wishful thinking. But that is not for some of us. I think that keeping "the rose colored glasses" on all the time can lead to great harm in the long run. The best example I can think of is the situation of Germany that lead up to World War II and the attempted extermination of the Jews. Many Germans wore the rose colored glasses right up the instant that all hell started falling from the sky's. Basically, it appears that the leaders of our society have convinced a large portion of our society to act in society's interest rather than their own. Unfortunately there are many that continue to act in their own self interest, which includes taking advantage of the fact that others are being altruistic. This flaw is catastrophic to the concept of a benevolent society optimized for the benefit of all members. This single fact accounts for the major troubles we have: crime in the streets, massive welfare, massive blood-sucking government, a national debt that will grow until we collapse, continued loss of constitutionally guaranteed rights, breakdown in education, and on and on. It is important to realize that this sorry situation results from both groups - the group that tries to do right and tries to help all of society and the group that looks after its own interests. If either group went away, the current mess would go away. Think about it. It is not productive to think in terms of making a group "do the right thing". If you want the group to do the right thing, then make sure there are incentives to the individuals in the group to do the right thing. To do that you must carefully analyze what it is that motivates the individuals in this group. Or, simply go ask them. As an individual, we can do little about correcting the oppressiveness of government. But if we think like an individual rather than a statistical member of a group, we are likely to take actions to minimize the impact of this oppressiveness on us personally. For example, we can try to minimize the taxes we pay. We can chose to live in an area in which crime and government oppression are minimal. We can try to be responsible for our own defense and protection. We can even try to take advantage of the system, where possible, if I may be so crass to suggest. We can use the system against them. We can make use of the free medical care and welfare rather than contribute to it. A good example of this is the situation of the farmers. While at one time they were fiercely independent and self reliant and greatly opposed government interference with their business, they now take advantage of every government program they can (known as "farming Washington"). Which of course is a form of welfare. Maybe we should all take this approach. The secret is to always think in terms of your benefit both as an individual and as a member of society. While what happens statistically to the group is of interest, what happens to you is a serious personal matter. Don't confuse the two. _______________________________ 1See Dawkins, Richard; The Selfish Gene; (1989; Oxford University Press )- Page 3. Note that an action that is based on self-interest but is also beneficial to the group is also a possibility. But is certainly not guaranteed - as some would have - nor excluded - as others would have. The selfishness of some individuals in the marketplace provide the rest of us with lots of fancy but cheap worldly goods, for example. 2For more information on this, you may want to consult the book by William Poundstone, Prisoner's Dilemma, (1992, Doubleday). 3Dawkins, The Selfish Gene 4Recently, on Public Radio, I heard an interview with some top government bureaucrat in which it was strongly suggested that there are no safe places to live in the country. Apparently this was a bit of propaganda to assure the rest of us living in "safe" places, getting a little uneasy sending all this money to the risky places, that all is fair and we will eventually get ours. This fits with the other well known piece of propaganda that "we are all created equal". 5This apparent paradox was examined in some detail in "The Common Good and the Voter's Paradox", IDEAS, August 1992 by Leon Felkins and Mack Tanner. [Please send comments (if any) to the author at leonf@ios.com] --------------------------------------------------------------------------- uXu #226 Underground eXperts United 1994 uXu #226 Call SECRET TECTONICS -> +49-40-823326 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------