Left2Right Comments

Let's conduct a thought experiment. Let's say you wanted create a convincing argument about socio-political organization that wouldn't make sense if the listener considered all of the details of the real world. What would be an approach for advancing that argument? One good way would be to create a metaphorical thought experiment where the details that weaken your argument could be left out.

That's exactly what Anderson does in this case. First, she chooses a more or less zero sum metaphor. The mountain stays the same size, never gets any bigger, and never gets any easier to climb. Second, there's no ability for savings and investment in her mountain climbing game. Third, the "social insurance" schemes aren't like bungees in that you don't actually get yanked back up and they are really a type of (very inefficient) savings and investment.

So I can't argue with her analysis of her metaphor. However, it just doesn't reflect reality anywhere near accurately enough in my opinion to begin a discussion.
 

I prefer solo games myself and as I have already argued, "social insurance" such as SS isn't insurance since retirement is an eminently forseeable event.
 

I also hate playing games that start with a Rawlsian Veil of Ignorance that allows players to treat the endowments and abilities (ropes and mountain-climbing skills) of other players as common property. Such games are quite immoral.
 

Good post.
- arbitrary aardvark