Humans tend to assume that their experiences are normative, and are surprised to see instances where their experiences are not shared. As a personal example, my friends are usually significantly shocked to learn I haven't seen the movie "The Boondock Saints". Yet they think nothing of the fact that they haven't seen Salvador Dali's "Un Chien Andalou", which I have. Our values are informed by our experiences, so we also tend to assume our values are shared by others.
Assuming one's values are normative leads to assuming that the fact they aren't reflected in the world must be the result of some external entity, a secret society, or this nebulous "the system". Instead, if one assumes that one's views aren't normative, then it is clear why one's views are not reflected in the world in aggregate: it's a simple tautology. Occam's Razor applies.
"The system" is not an entity unto itself, it is intractable from the people within it, it is nothing more than the people within it. The "invisible hand of the market" is merely a short-hand, anthropomorphizing term for "the aggregate activity of the people within the poorly defined borders of 'the market'." If something isn't a particular way, it's because "most people" demonstrably do NOT concede your point, or if they do, do not assign such great importance to it as to warrant change.
I don't like that elderly care personnel are paid less than middle managers either, but I'm not suggesting to force everyone else to make that valuation. When you say, "we as a society have to find a way...", and if you are suggesting that way be via government intervention, then really you're saying, "I want to force everyone else in society to pay for my way..." (undemocratic, even totalitarian). Then we have to write a new tax code to pay for it, and we get this situation here in the OP. If instead you are suggesting that you will live by example and proselytize to your fellow man to do the same, then really you're using "the invisible hand of the market" to enact the change you desire.
As an aside: it's not uncommon for groups of people to say they value one thing but, in their aggregate behavior, act as if they value other things instead. This is particularly blatant where moral obligations are involved.
If instead you are suggesting that you will live by example and proselytize to your fellow man to do the same, then really you're using "the invisible hand of the market" to enact the change you desire.
It sounded to me like his point was more that it doesn't work to just sit around waiting for the "invisible hand", i.e., someone else, to fix a problem like that. Someone has to get up and actually do something and persuade people.
Correct. There are any number of things that a person can do. The problem is, what are things that one can do that are effective, as well as avoiding trampling on other liberties in the process? The "use government" route is fraught with moral hazard and unintended consequences.
> [...] then really you're using "the invisible hand of the market" to enact the change you desire.
It seems to me that many people revering the "invisible hand of market" imply that there's no point acting to cause a social change: the best possible world should emerge from individuals fighting to maximize their financial wealth.
If you take "invisible hand of market" in the widest possible sense, I'd rather call it "natural selection".
Assuming one's values are normative leads to assuming that the fact they aren't reflected in the world must be the result of some external entity, a secret society, or this nebulous "the system". Instead, if one assumes that one's views aren't normative, then it is clear why one's views are not reflected in the world in aggregate: it's a simple tautology. Occam's Razor applies.
"The system" is not an entity unto itself, it is intractable from the people within it, it is nothing more than the people within it. The "invisible hand of the market" is merely a short-hand, anthropomorphizing term for "the aggregate activity of the people within the poorly defined borders of 'the market'." If something isn't a particular way, it's because "most people" demonstrably do NOT concede your point, or if they do, do not assign such great importance to it as to warrant change.
I don't like that elderly care personnel are paid less than middle managers either, but I'm not suggesting to force everyone else to make that valuation. When you say, "we as a society have to find a way...", and if you are suggesting that way be via government intervention, then really you're saying, "I want to force everyone else in society to pay for my way..." (undemocratic, even totalitarian). Then we have to write a new tax code to pay for it, and we get this situation here in the OP. If instead you are suggesting that you will live by example and proselytize to your fellow man to do the same, then really you're using "the invisible hand of the market" to enact the change you desire.