3 ms·

> this is the achille's heal of libertarianism. it simply leans too heavily on the rationality assumption, while also ignoring many things of value in our lives

> this is the achille's heal of libertarianism. it simply leans too heavily on the rationality assumption, while also ignoring many things of value in our lives like love, empathy, conversations, the future (unknowable) value of natural resources, homemaking activities, etc. it's political use (in the mano a mano sense, not in the government sense) is as a rationalization to be a jerk to your neighbor. Not only I disagree completely with the notion that it is a weakness of the libertarian-economic model, but contrary to it, it offers the strongest protection against the misuse of paternalistic ideas. As Milton Friedman put it, "every man should have the ability to be stupid with his own money". Behavioral economics are fun and interesting, but they are not the kind of ideas that will have an effect on policy the way that it disproves or makes the neo-liberal economic framework inapplicable. The reality is that even presented with some predictably irrational behavior, we still prefer it. Even if you know the crossed-off price tag is economically irrelevant to the decision to buy or not, we react to it, we change our decision. And although there are circumstances worth exploring, trying to nuke out those solutions tend to have really worse results.

notduncansmith 9y ago
I believe protection against abuse of top-down policy is what the 2nd amendment is for, no need to pollute the globally-efficient distribution of goods and services with redundant efforts. If you would describe most of the populace as imperfectly rational (I would, and I acknowledge my own contribution to that) then it seems irrational to support policy that depends on a perfectly rational populace; like a policy that depends on a nationwide constant temperature of 72 degrees.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  > I believe protection against abuse of top-down policy is what the 2nd amendment is for, no need to pollute the globally-efficient distribution of goods and services with redundant efforts. I wonder how many unfair taxes have been repealed by the capacity to bear arms in response to them in the US. Examples of taxes that would be deemed extremely unfair by the recipients include soda, alcohol and tobacco taxes. > If you would describe most of the populace as imperfectly rational (I would, and I acknowledge my own contribution to that) then it seems irrational to support policy that depends on a perfectly rational populace; like a policy that depends on a nationwide constant temperature of 72 degrees. I'd like some more concrete examples of what you are pointing at. Classic economic models accept entirely that people are not perfectly rational, its just they tend to be for the majority of circumstances in aggregate. This is no secret, not even to Adam Smith, and that was centuries ago. So what policies are you talking about? The state deciding what your diet should be, how your savings should be, how your work time should be, etc?

notduncansmith 9y ago

I believe protection against abuse of top-down policy is what the 2nd amendment is for, no need to pollute the globally-efficient distribution of goods and services with redundant efforts. If you would describe most of the populace as imperfectly rational (I would, and I acknowledge my own contribution to that) then it seems irrational to support policy that depends on a perfectly rational populace; like a policy that depends on a nationwide constant temperature of 72 degrees.

conanbatt 9y ago
> I believe protection against abuse of top-down policy is what the 2nd amendment is for, no need to pollute the globally-efficient distribution of goods and services with redundant efforts. I wonder how many unfair taxes have been repealed by the capacity to bear arms in response to them in the US. Examples of taxes that would be deemed extremely unfair by the recipients include soda, alcohol and tobacco taxes. > If you would describe most of the populace as imperfectly rational (I would, and I acknowledge my own contribution to that) then it seems irrational to support policy that depends on a perfectly rational populace; like a policy that depends on a nationwide constant temperature of 72 degrees. I'd like some more concrete examples of what you are pointing at. Classic economic models accept entirely that people are not perfectly rational, its just they tend to be for the majority of circumstances in aggregate. This is no secret, not even to Adam Smith, and that was centuries ago. So what policies are you talking about? The state deciding what your diet should be, how your savings should be, how your work time should be, etc?