Iām still not perfectly convinced: there still seems to be a symmetric formulation. You describe it in terms of pushing instead of pulling. But what about the symmetry between expressions āan existing individual in X pushes the situation from X to Yā, versus āan existing individual in Y pulls the situation from X to Yā? Why would there be no money pump in pulling cases if there could be a money pump in a pushing case?
In the pushing case, if you make one choice, youāre sometimes compelled to change your mind: if youāve chosen X, the individuals in X can push you towards Y. In the pulling case, the reasons to change your mind donāt apply in the option youāve chosen: if youāve chosen X, the individuals in Y canāt pull you towards Y, because those claims donāt come from X. The claims in Y for Y over X only make a difference if there are also claims in Y for X (or something else) over Y that they defeat, which is captured by āin Y, a stronger overall interest in Y than in Xā or āin Y, a stronger overall interest in X than in Yā (or equality).
Iāll break it down into cases to illustrate:
Suppose āan existing individual in X pushes the situation from X to Yā. Then:
1. If you choose X, an individual who exists in X has a claim to Y over X, so you have reason to change your mind to Y, and this reason only applies in X, which youāve chosen. Thatās a reason to change your mind to Y, although it may ultimately be outweighed if there are other claims (but first by other claims in X, and then if thereās an overall claim in X to Y over X, i.e. in the same direction, also by claims in Y). If there are no other reasons to be concerned with, then this is not a stable solution, since you have an overall reason in X to change your mind to Y, and no other reasons in any other outcome to change your mind.
2. If you choose Y, we donāt have enough information to say anything (we donāt know if the individuals in Y have claims to anything else). The claim in X to Y over X does not apply here, since you didnāt choose X, although there could be other claims. If there are no other reasons to be concerned with, then this is a stable solution, since you have no reason in Y to change your mind.
Now, instead suppose āan existing individual in Y pulls the situation from X to Yā. Then:
1. If you choose Y, an individual who exists in Y has a claim to Y over X, so you have a reason to not change your mind to X, but this reason only applies in Y, which youāve chosen. Thatās a reason to not change your mind to X, although it may ultimately be outweighed if there are other claims (but first by other claims in Y, and then if thereās an overall claim in Y to X over Y, i.e. in the opposite direction, also by claims in X). If there are no other reasons to be concerned with, then this is a stable solution, since you have no reason in Y to change your mind.
2. If you choose X, we donāt have enough information to say anything (we donāt know if the individuals in Y have claims to anything else). The claim in Y to Y over X does not apply here, since you didnāt choose Y, although there could be other claims. If there are no other reasons to be concerned with, then this is a stable solution, since you have no reason in X to change your mind.
In the pushing case, if you make one choice, youāre sometimes compelled to change your mind: if youāve chosen X, the individuals in X can push you towards Y. In the pulling case, the reasons to change your mind donāt apply in the option youāve chosen: if youāve chosen X, the individuals in Y canāt pull you towards Y, because those claims donāt come from X. The claims in Y for Y over X only make a difference if there are also claims in Y for X (or something else) over Y that they defeat, which is captured by āin Y, a stronger overall interest in Y than in Xā or āin Y, a stronger overall interest in X than in Yā (or equality).
Iāll break it down into cases to illustrate:
Suppose āan existing individual in X pushes the situation from X to Yā. Then:
1. If you choose X, an individual who exists in X has a claim to Y over X, so you have reason to change your mind to Y, and this reason only applies in X, which youāve chosen. Thatās a reason to change your mind to Y, although it may ultimately be outweighed if there are other claims (but first by other claims in X, and then if thereās an overall claim in X to Y over X, i.e. in the same direction, also by claims in Y). If there are no other reasons to be concerned with, then this is not a stable solution, since you have an overall reason in X to change your mind to Y, and no other reasons in any other outcome to change your mind.
2. If you choose Y, we donāt have enough information to say anything (we donāt know if the individuals in Y have claims to anything else). The claim in X to Y over X does not apply here, since you didnāt choose X, although there could be other claims. If there are no other reasons to be concerned with, then this is a stable solution, since you have no reason in Y to change your mind.
Now, instead suppose āan existing individual in Y pulls the situation from X to Yā. Then:
1. If you choose Y, an individual who exists in Y has a claim to Y over X, so you have a reason to not change your mind to X, but this reason only applies in Y, which youāve chosen. Thatās a reason to not change your mind to X, although it may ultimately be outweighed if there are other claims (but first by other claims in Y, and then if thereās an overall claim in Y to X over Y, i.e. in the opposite direction, also by claims in X). If there are no other reasons to be concerned with, then this is a stable solution, since you have no reason in Y to change your mind.
2. If you choose X, we donāt have enough information to say anything (we donāt know if the individuals in Y have claims to anything else). The claim in Y to Y over X does not apply here, since you didnāt choose Y, although there could be other claims. If there are no other reasons to be concerned with, then this is a stable solution, since you have no reason in X to change your mind.
got it! :-)