When you ask "who decides what others deserve?" there are three separate questions that should be disambiguated. Question one is, "who has the political power to enforce rewards and punishments?" Question two is, "who has the power to philosophically make up their mind about what the rewards and punishments for others ought to be?" And q…
When you ask "who decides what others deserve?" there are three separate questions that should be disambiguated. Question one is, "who has the political power to enforce rewards and punishments?" Question two is, "who has the power to philosophically make up their mind about what the rewards and punishments for others ought to be?" And question three is, "who *ought* to have the power to enforce rewards and punishments?" The three questions have different answers.
To answer question one, in a democracy, we vote on what is best for society and on who should be punished for false advertising or pollution and on who should receive money for building useful bridges and inventing cool things. The consumer also votes using their dollars. And finally, people exert informal social pressures on each other to conform to certain behaviors. All three processes are imperfect, which is to say, government, free-market capitalism, and informal social pressures frequently produce incentive structures that are misaligned with what is best for society.
To answer question two, you and I, and indeed each individual person, has the power to make up their own mind about what the rewards and punishments for others ought to be. Question two does not imply the wielding of political power. Question two regards only the mental act of deciding what's good or bad, or who deserves what. It is question two that is most relevant in a discussion like this, where neither of us is a prime minister or a billionaire with enough power to make major changes to society. We are only discussing what are the most reasonable views to hold in our own minds. For example, I say that polluting the rivers or deceiving people into buying a useless product is bad. I say that people who do this don't deserve to make money from it, and deserve to be punished for it in proportion to the harm caused.
Question three is a deep and challenging one which I haven't talked about at all. Is it possible to improve on our legislative system? What structure of government could produce the best alignment of rewards and punishments? Hanson's notion of futarchy is one interesting, sweeping approach, in which people could bet on which government structures produce the best outcomes. But we don't have to go that far. We can speak instead about incremental improvements to the current system. For one example of an incremental improvement, I'd advocate for laws to increase accountability among politicians - so that if a politician campaigns on a policy that he promises will produce certain measurable benefits, and the policy is enacted but the proposed benefits do not in fact occur, then the politician should be liable in some way.
At some level, I agree with you. We decide that murder, rape, theft etc. are bad for society and enforce rules against them.
But when we get past obvious offenses against person or property and start considering what people “deserve” or how to “reward” them (at the government level), I get very nervous.
Rewards and punishments are determined at all levels, not just the government level. When a manager decides who to hire or give a raise and who to fire, that's reward and punishment at the private level. When a customer decides which business to buy products from, or when an investor makes a profit on his investment, that is reward at the market level. When a person decides who to be friends with or who to denounce, that's reward and punishment at the informal social level.
Certainly there are risks of government overreach. A very major risk is when the laws are vague so that the executive branch has too much discretion in enforcing them. The problem there is that a member of the executive branch may wish to punish people he doesn't like - discriminate against out-group members. Or he may wish to give juicy contracts to his friends and insiders, irrespective of what is best for the community. Those are very common and harmful forms of discrimination. The solution should be laws requiring greater transparency and accountability among elected officials.
When you ask "who decides what others deserve?" there are three separate questions that should be disambiguated. Question one is, "who has the political power to enforce rewards and punishments?" Question two is, "who has the power to philosophically make up their mind about what the rewards and punishments for others ought to be?" And question three is, "who *ought* to have the power to enforce rewards and punishments?" The three questions have different answers.
To answer question one, in a democracy, we vote on what is best for society and on who should be punished for false advertising or pollution and on who should receive money for building useful bridges and inventing cool things. The consumer also votes using their dollars. And finally, people exert informal social pressures on each other to conform to certain behaviors. All three processes are imperfect, which is to say, government, free-market capitalism, and informal social pressures frequently produce incentive structures that are misaligned with what is best for society.
To answer question two, you and I, and indeed each individual person, has the power to make up their own mind about what the rewards and punishments for others ought to be. Question two does not imply the wielding of political power. Question two regards only the mental act of deciding what's good or bad, or who deserves what. It is question two that is most relevant in a discussion like this, where neither of us is a prime minister or a billionaire with enough power to make major changes to society. We are only discussing what are the most reasonable views to hold in our own minds. For example, I say that polluting the rivers or deceiving people into buying a useless product is bad. I say that people who do this don't deserve to make money from it, and deserve to be punished for it in proportion to the harm caused.
Question three is a deep and challenging one which I haven't talked about at all. Is it possible to improve on our legislative system? What structure of government could produce the best alignment of rewards and punishments? Hanson's notion of futarchy is one interesting, sweeping approach, in which people could bet on which government structures produce the best outcomes. But we don't have to go that far. We can speak instead about incremental improvements to the current system. For one example of an incremental improvement, I'd advocate for laws to increase accountability among politicians - so that if a politician campaigns on a policy that he promises will produce certain measurable benefits, and the policy is enacted but the proposed benefits do not in fact occur, then the politician should be liable in some way.
At some level, I agree with you. We decide that murder, rape, theft etc. are bad for society and enforce rules against them.
But when we get past obvious offenses against person or property and start considering what people “deserve” or how to “reward” them (at the government level), I get very nervous.
Rewards and punishments are determined at all levels, not just the government level. When a manager decides who to hire or give a raise and who to fire, that's reward and punishment at the private level. When a customer decides which business to buy products from, or when an investor makes a profit on his investment, that is reward at the market level. When a person decides who to be friends with or who to denounce, that's reward and punishment at the informal social level.
Certainly there are risks of government overreach. A very major risk is when the laws are vague so that the executive branch has too much discretion in enforcing them. The problem there is that a member of the executive branch may wish to punish people he doesn't like - discriminate against out-group members. Or he may wish to give juicy contracts to his friends and insiders, irrespective of what is best for the community. Those are very common and harmful forms of discrimination. The solution should be laws requiring greater transparency and accountability among elected officials.