powerlaw distributions Re: [LINK] MEAA tells Creative Commons to get f**ed

[Craig Sanders]

On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:12:46PM +1100, Deus Ex Machina wrote:
> from Shirky
> "This is a counter-intuitive finding - most of us would expect a rising
> number of choices to flatten the curve, but in fact, increasing the size
> of the system increases the gap between the #1 spot and the median spot."

i think Sturgeon's Law is a better explanation of the same phenomeon.

not all choices are equal.  90% of everything is crap.  better choices will be
more popular.

> I have posted exactly the same thing before: freedom of choice and
> egalitarianism are mutally incompatible. the more freedom the greater
> the resulting inequality. the less the inequality the less freedom we
> have. freedom of choice and equality are complimentary in the quantum
> sense.

nice bait and switch there.  "freedom of choice" and "freedom" are not the
same thing.

> Vic's paradox:
> the fairer a society is the greater the resulting inequality.

no, this isn't a paradox. this is just a contradiction in terms. calling
it a "paradox" might make it sound like it has mysteriously mystical
significance, but it doesn't make it true.

fairness requires (or is an aspect of) equality.  fair and equal are synonyms,
just as unfair and unequal are synonyms.
 

> the logical outcome of an ideal egalitarian philosphy is
> totalitarianism. it can not be any other way.
>
> unless you have a resulting powerlaw distribution you do not have fair
> exchange of value in an economic sense. you can not prevent a powerlaw
> distribution in a system unless you interefer with every transaction.
> ie prevent all people from exercising freedom of choice.
>
> the more a society wants freedom as an outcome the more it must
> abandon egalitarian view points. there is no cartels or evil
> intentions to create a powerlaw ditribution it doesnt require
> structural abuses or fascistic big brothers. all it requires is
> alowing people to choose what they think is best. distribute
> ability by bell curve and you will have a resulting powerlaw value
> distribution.

as with most things in life, this is nowhere near as simple and black & white
an issue as you think it is.

it's not a matter of freedom vs non-freedom.  it's a matter of competing
freedoms.

for example:

the freedom to murder conflicts with the freedom to live.
the freedom to rape conflicts with personal safety.
the freedom to pollute the air & water conflicts with healthy life.

...and many other freedoms (e.g. the freedom to: exploit, enslave, torture,
steal, oppress, coerce, annoy, obstruct, monopolise etc. etc. etc) that we
limit or prohibit because they conflict with the freedoms and rights of
others.

in all societies, we accept reasonable restrictions on unreasonable freedoms
as being necessary to promote the greatest good for the greatest number.

the trouble is that you believe that the freedom to make a profit is
the greatest freedom, that it trumps all others. most people, however,
believe that there are far more important freedoms & rights, and that it
is reasonable to place limits on the freedom to make a profit in order
to preserve those freedoms.

> powerlaw distributions means there is no such thing as a gap between
> rich and poor. there is a distribution. powerlaw distributions means
> that to fairly increase the lot of a large number of people in a free
> society you must dramatically increase the wealth of a few. the less
> poor (ie tail in the distribution) you want the higher the individual
> wealth at peak of the powerlaw distributions *must* be.

weren't you paying attention?  the trickle-down theory has been completely
discredited.  renaming it doesn't give it a new lease on life.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>           (part time cyborg)