5 ms·

Because, unlike what classical-liberal economic theory stipulates, human beings aren't inherently selfish. People can succeed under a system and still acknowle

Because, unlike what classical-liberal economic theory stipulates, human beings aren't inherently selfish. People can succeed under a system and still acknowledge it is a bad one for a big part of the population.

panick21_ 3y ago
> Because, unlike what classical-liberal economic theory stipulates, human beings aren't inherently selfish. If you actually knew anything about the history of classical liberalism you wouldn't perpetuate this nonsensical stereotype. Classical Liberalism is not the same as Objectivism.
- EMIRELADERO 3y ago
  I'm talking about classical-liberal economic theory, mostly Austrian and Chicago school.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    That is still wrong. It more correct for Chicago but its not remotely true for Austrian school. The whole point that made the Austrian school different from the Neoclassical approach used by for example Walras or Jevons was that they DID NOT think about micro economics as pure utility optimization. The point of their approach is not to claim that all individuals are self interested, rather that a dynamic market situation can lead to a good outcome whatever desire the person has. It doesn't fundamentally matter if a person buys porn for himself or if he feeds the homeless. That's of course morally different, but a difference in the underlying economics. That why there is a strong emphasis on subjective theory of value in Austrian economics. But of course simply empirically speaking most people first look out for themselves and their family and friends. Not sure why that would be controversial. And that is what Austrian economics also assumed, but its called self-interest and not selfishness.
- defrost 3y ago
  A core classic liberal belief, arguably the core belief, is that nothing should stand in the way of individuals being able to secure their own economic self-interest. To be sure this does not stipulate that all actors be selfish, merely that no penalty should inhibit selfishness.
  - eru 3y ago
    Penalties should be on action (or inactions), not on states of mind.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    > A core classic liberal belief, arguably the core belief, is that nothing should stand in the way of individuals being able to secure their own economic self-interest. That is completely false, you are simply attacking the straw men that 100 years of oversimplified critics of classical liberalism have set up. The classical liberal tradition always had a strong association and interest in English Common Law and never asserted individual action is above the law, exactly the opposite is the case. The Law very foundation that classical liberal build on. That's why there is a whole field of economics called 'Economics & Law' that goes back a long time. > To be sure this does not stipulate that all actors be selfish, merely that no penalty should inhibit selfishness. The factor that inhibits selfishness is the law. But you are correct, no classical liberal thinker thought people should be punished for being selfish in of itself.
    - defrost 3y ago
      > That is completely false, you are simply attacking the straw men that 100 years of oversimplified critics of classical liberalism have set up. I suggest you quickly take that up with the wikipedia page and several texts then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism Evolution of core beliefs Drawing on ideas of Adam Smith, classical liberals believed that it is in the common interest that all individuals be able to secure their own economic self-interest. attributed to: Dickerson, M. O.; Flanagan, Thomas; O'Neill, Brenda (2009). An Introduction to Government and Politics: A Conceptual Approach. Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-0176500429.
tonymet 3y ago
but why always communism? Let's agree today's system is bad. What system are we in? Certainly not capitalist. ~ 50% of GDP goes to the government. That's closer to socialist. Why love communism so much? We're practically communist already. Why not blame that?
eru 3y ago
Economics doesn't stipulate selfishness anymore than physics requires cows to be spherical creatures that live in a vacuum.
- EMIRELADERO 3y ago
  Not "economics", but classical-liberal and neoliberal ones (Austrian and Chicago school)
  - eru 3y ago
    No, they don't stipulate that. They just assume that you have preferences and want to satisfy them. Those preferences can include 'earn as much money as possible', but they can also include 'feed starving children in the orphanage across the street'. The theory doesn't really care about the exact shape of your preferences. It's a useful shorthand to assume that economic actors want to maximize profit, because that allows them to spend money on almost any other goal they have (like feeding the orphans). But economics can still help us understand why more people want to be teachers, even if the pay is low, than programmers or prostitutes or truck drivers in oil boom counties.
    - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
      This commenter put it better than I ever could, so I'll respond with that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38838746 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38838746
- BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
  True. It assumes simple rational actors which act in… well… their own best interests?
  - eru 3y ago
    That 'best interest' can be anything you are interested in. Eg eating lots of chocolate, or feeding starving children in an orphanage. People aren't even assumed to be rational. Bounded rationality is a thing that gets investigated a lot.
WalterBright 3y ago
> human beings aren't inherently selfish Of course they are. I am, you are, everybody is.
- maxbond 3y ago
  By what means have you seen into this other commenter's heart to determine they are fundamentally selfish?
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    All people are selfish. People who give to others derive pleasure from it, and they like that pleasure. Not enough to base an economy on it, though. People soon get tired of working hard only to give the results to loafers.
    - maxbond 3y ago
      I can't help but notice that you didn't answer my question, but instead repeated your original assertion. Let's say I declare that your observation is not true of me personally. Note that this doesn't necessitate any evidence external to me; I could introspect and discover this about myself, however you don't have the ability to "introspect" into my own mind. How could you prove to me I'm mistaken? And please note, I am not looking for a restatement here, I understand what your view is.
      - WalterBright 3y ago
        > How could you prove to me I'm mistaken? By having a conversation with you. I'd point out your pride and self-satisfaction at being unselfish. If I knew of you more than that, I'd point out your selfish behavior. It's not hard, look at the clothes you wear, the car you drive, the cookie you ate, your grooming, and so on.
        maxbond 3y ago
        You wouldn't think much of my clothing. I've never owned a car. My grooming is minimal, my appearance just doesn't cross my mind. But I do like a nice cookie. I behave selfishly sometimes, no question. Does that really define the entirety of who I am? Why would it define me more than, say, when I feel bored, or when I behave generously, or when I do things on impulse? Afterall, I try to avoid behaving selfishly, so I spend a lot more time in these other frames of mind. Why shouldn't the totality be what defines me or anyone else? Flattening a human being into mere selfishness might be a convenient assumption to build models around, but the map is not the terrain.

panick21_ 3y ago

> Because, unlike what classical-liberal economic theory stipulates, human beings aren't inherently selfish. If you actually knew anything about the history of classical liberalism you wouldn't perpetuate this nonsensical stereotype. Classical Liberalism is not the same as Objectivism.

EMIRELADERO 3y ago
I'm talking about classical-liberal economic theory, mostly Austrian and Chicago school.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  That is still wrong. It more correct for Chicago but its not remotely true for Austrian school. The whole point that made the Austrian school different from the Neoclassical approach used by for example Walras or Jevons was that they DID NOT think about micro economics as pure utility optimization. The point of their approach is not to claim that all individuals are self interested, rather that a dynamic market situation can lead to a good outcome whatever desire the person has. It doesn't fundamentally matter if a person buys porn for himself or if he feeds the homeless. That's of course morally different, but a difference in the underlying economics. That why there is a strong emphasis on subjective theory of value in Austrian economics. But of course simply empirically speaking most people first look out for themselves and their family and friends. Not sure why that would be controversial. And that is what Austrian economics also assumed, but its called self-interest and not selfishness.
defrost 3y ago
A core classic liberal belief, arguably the core belief, is that nothing should stand in the way of individuals being able to secure their own economic self-interest. To be sure this does not stipulate that all actors be selfish, merely that no penalty should inhibit selfishness.
- eru 3y ago
  Penalties should be on action (or inactions), not on states of mind.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  > A core classic liberal belief, arguably the core belief, is that nothing should stand in the way of individuals being able to secure their own economic self-interest. That is completely false, you are simply attacking the straw men that 100 years of oversimplified critics of classical liberalism have set up. The classical liberal tradition always had a strong association and interest in English Common Law and never asserted individual action is above the law, exactly the opposite is the case. The Law very foundation that classical liberal build on. That's why there is a whole field of economics called 'Economics & Law' that goes back a long time. > To be sure this does not stipulate that all actors be selfish, merely that no penalty should inhibit selfishness. The factor that inhibits selfishness is the law. But you are correct, no classical liberal thinker thought people should be punished for being selfish in of itself.
  - defrost 3y ago
    > That is completely false, you are simply attacking the straw men that 100 years of oversimplified critics of classical liberalism have set up. I suggest you quickly take that up with the wikipedia page and several texts then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism Evolution of core beliefs Drawing on ideas of Adam Smith, classical liberals believed that it is in the common interest that all individuals be able to secure their own economic self-interest. attributed to: Dickerson, M. O.; Flanagan, Thomas; O'Neill, Brenda (2009). An Introduction to Government and Politics: A Conceptual Approach. Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-0176500429.

tonymet 3y ago

but why always communism? Let's agree today's system is bad. What system are we in? Certainly not capitalist. ~ 50% of GDP goes to the government. That's closer to socialist. Why love communism so much? We're practically communist already. Why not blame that?

eru 3y ago

Economics doesn't stipulate selfishness anymore than physics requires cows to be spherical creatures that live in a vacuum.

EMIRELADERO 3y ago
Not "economics", but classical-liberal and neoliberal ones (Austrian and Chicago school)
- eru 3y ago
  No, they don't stipulate that. They just assume that you have preferences and want to satisfy them. Those preferences can include 'earn as much money as possible', but they can also include 'feed starving children in the orphanage across the street'. The theory doesn't really care about the exact shape of your preferences. It's a useful shorthand to assume that economic actors want to maximize profit, because that allows them to spend money on almost any other goal they have (like feeding the orphans). But economics can still help us understand why more people want to be teachers, even if the pay is low, than programmers or prostitutes or truck drivers in oil boom counties.
  - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
    This commenter put it better than I ever could, so I'll respond with that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38838746 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38838746
BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
True. It assumes simple rational actors which act in… well… their own best interests?
- eru 3y ago
  That 'best interest' can be anything you are interested in. Eg eating lots of chocolate, or feeding starving children in an orphanage. People aren't even assumed to be rational. Bounded rationality is a thing that gets investigated a lot.

WalterBright 3y ago

> human beings aren't inherently selfish Of course they are. I am, you are, everybody is.

maxbond 3y ago
By what means have you seen into this other commenter's heart to determine they are fundamentally selfish?
- WalterBright 3y ago
  All people are selfish. People who give to others derive pleasure from it, and they like that pleasure. Not enough to base an economy on it, though. People soon get tired of working hard only to give the results to loafers.
  - maxbond 3y ago
    I can't help but notice that you didn't answer my question, but instead repeated your original assertion. Let's say I declare that your observation is not true of me personally. Note that this doesn't necessitate any evidence external to me; I could introspect and discover this about myself, however you don't have the ability to "introspect" into my own mind. How could you prove to me I'm mistaken? And please note, I am not looking for a restatement here, I understand what your view is.
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      > How could you prove to me I'm mistaken? By having a conversation with you. I'd point out your pride and self-satisfaction at being unselfish. If I knew of you more than that, I'd point out your selfish behavior. It's not hard, look at the clothes you wear, the car you drive, the cookie you ate, your grooming, and so on.
      - maxbond 3y ago
        You wouldn't think much of my clothing. I've never owned a car. My grooming is minimal, my appearance just doesn't cross my mind. But I do like a nice cookie. I behave selfishly sometimes, no question. Does that really define the entirety of who I am? Why would it define me more than, say, when I feel bored, or when I behave generously, or when I do things on impulse? Afterall, I try to avoid behaving selfishly, so I spend a lot more time in these other frames of mind. Why shouldn't the totality be what defines me or anyone else? Flattening a human being into mere selfishness might be a convenient assumption to build models around, but the map is not the terrain.