4 ms·

> I like the market because it lets me make more choices of my own. Are you making your own choices? Do you sincerely believe that when one of the largest pil

> I like the market because it lets me make more choices of my own. Are you making your own choices? Do you sincerely believe that when one of the largest pillars of the American economy right now is staffed from top to bottom with PhD holders who use everything they know about psychology to make you think certain ways? To want shit you don't need? To make you play games you don't like? To make you consume art that makes you feel nothing? To make you hate people you don't know? To make you eat food that makes you feel shitty? Do you really make your own choices? To be clear this is not meant as an attack. I'm just saying there are trillions of dollars on the line in making people, at scale, make choices. Do you really believe you are an island, free from influence? Do you honestly think your wants, needs, desires are not socially informed?

bluGill 4mo ago
You say that as if there is any alternative. Every other system as well has people who are good at psychology spreading propaganda.
- ToucanLoucan 4mo ago
  Oh I'm not questioning that at all. I'm just saying if they aren't really your choices, why is making them valuable to you? Sure, you have 30 different choices of peanut butter to pick from, but you always pick the same one, because it's what your mom used when you were a kiddo, or because you don't like the oil separating ones, or because the chunky makes you feel like it's healthy even though it's loaded down with as much sugar as a Coke. What does choice even mean in that kind of environment?
  - bluGill 4mo ago
    I have changed my peanut butter choice - when science started realizing trans fat was a problem I switched before the law changed to reflect science. I have also tried various of the 30 different options in other situations and found the one I personally like best. The value isn't just that I can make a choice, it is also that other people really do make different choices. You are forgetting about the time factor. I don't make a choice every time, but I'm not a 22 year old out on his own for the first time either (22 was about 30 years ago for me, and there are reasonable odds I have another 30 years to go). I don't have to make a choice every time to take advantages of choices.
    - swid 4mo ago
      It’s funny you defend your independence by giving explanations of how you changed your peanut butter buying habits. The point was we don’t care what kind of peanut butter you buy; it’s not a meaningful kind of choice to have.
      - bit-anarchist 4mo ago
        First, whether something is meaningful or not, depends on the subject. Independence here isn't about whether your mind exists in a parallel world - devoid of external inputs - it's whether your input is required for an action to happen or not. They didn't simply comply with a choice from above, they experimented and came with an option that works for them. It doesn't matter whether that's a common choice or not, but who held the final authority in it. In centralized systems, your input is, in theory, basically irrelevant/in practice, completely irrelevant unless you happen to the central authority.
- kelseyfrog 4mo ago
  There is no alternative[1]. Or in other words, Omelas is more believable if there is a kid in a hole. 1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_no_alternative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_no_alternative
- red-iron-pine 4mo ago
  they said the same thing about the divine right of kings how could there be an alternative? surely without god or a king everything would fall apart!
  - bit-anarchist 4mo ago
    Because the alternative to a market (a system where people make choices with the stuff they own) is a system where people are dictated to use stuff they don't own. The divine right of kings touched on a lot of things, like governance, ownership, origin of law, etc. Decentralization/centralization focuses on ownership before anything else.
  - red-iron-pine 4mo ago
    HN in a nutshell -- all in on capitalism and divine right of kings.
bit-anarchist 4mo ago
Not op, but my answer would be yes. The very need for psychiatrists is, in a sense, an example for that. This is a case of companies trying to do their best to convince you to engage with them, because, otherwise, you likely wouldn't. Also, you never get stuff you don't "need". Games you don't want to play? Never happens, even in addictive games. Consume art that makes you feel nothing? Feel nothing how? Worst case scenario, you thought it would make you feel something, but it didn't. In all of these cases, the worst that happened is that you were made to wrongly belive that they would sate you, but your prediction was wrong, so you improve it for next time. Remember, even hypnosis can't overrule individual will, only brainwashing (which isn't a thing yet). Take the opposite approach, central planning. In central planning, you are given little to no choices. You will be assigned the resources and roles you need according to the central planner. Even if the planner is democratic, your influence is reduced to a single vote, which is guaranteed to be erased by the law of large numbers. And that's ignoring external factor to you that are in control of the central planner: the psychlogists you mentioned still exist, but now they work for the planner instead. We can argue that people are currently led into making poor choices in the market, but to conclude that this means no choice is being made is wrong. In a market, we can improve people's choices. In centralized systems, "people's choices" aren't a thing.

bluGill 4mo ago

You say that as if there is any alternative. Every other system as well has people who are good at psychology spreading propaganda.

ToucanLoucan 4mo ago
Oh I'm not questioning that at all. I'm just saying if they aren't really your choices, why is making them valuable to you? Sure, you have 30 different choices of peanut butter to pick from, but you always pick the same one, because it's what your mom used when you were a kiddo, or because you don't like the oil separating ones, or because the chunky makes you feel like it's healthy even though it's loaded down with as much sugar as a Coke. What does choice even mean in that kind of environment?
- bluGill 4mo ago
  I have changed my peanut butter choice - when science started realizing trans fat was a problem I switched before the law changed to reflect science. I have also tried various of the 30 different options in other situations and found the one I personally like best. The value isn't just that I can make a choice, it is also that other people really do make different choices. You are forgetting about the time factor. I don't make a choice every time, but I'm not a 22 year old out on his own for the first time either (22 was about 30 years ago for me, and there are reasonable odds I have another 30 years to go). I don't have to make a choice every time to take advantages of choices.
  - swid 4mo ago
    It’s funny you defend your independence by giving explanations of how you changed your peanut butter buying habits. The point was we don’t care what kind of peanut butter you buy; it’s not a meaningful kind of choice to have.
    - bit-anarchist 4mo ago
      First, whether something is meaningful or not, depends on the subject. Independence here isn't about whether your mind exists in a parallel world - devoid of external inputs - it's whether your input is required for an action to happen or not. They didn't simply comply with a choice from above, they experimented and came with an option that works for them. It doesn't matter whether that's a common choice or not, but who held the final authority in it. In centralized systems, your input is, in theory, basically irrelevant/in practice, completely irrelevant unless you happen to the central authority.
kelseyfrog 4mo ago
There is no alternative[1]. Or in other words, Omelas is more believable if there is a kid in a hole. 1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_no_alternative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_no_alternative
red-iron-pine 4mo ago
they said the same thing about the divine right of kings how could there be an alternative? surely without god or a king everything would fall apart!
- bit-anarchist 4mo ago
  Because the alternative to a market (a system where people make choices with the stuff they own) is a system where people are dictated to use stuff they don't own. The divine right of kings touched on a lot of things, like governance, ownership, origin of law, etc. Decentralization/centralization focuses on ownership before anything else.
- red-iron-pine 4mo ago
  HN in a nutshell -- all in on capitalism and divine right of kings.

bit-anarchist 4mo ago

Not op, but my answer would be yes. The very need for psychiatrists is, in a sense, an example for that. This is a case of companies trying to do their best to convince you to engage with them, because, otherwise, you likely wouldn't. Also, you never get stuff you don't "need". Games you don't want to play? Never happens, even in addictive games. Consume art that makes you feel nothing? Feel nothing how? Worst case scenario, you thought it would make you feel something, but it didn't. In all of these cases, the worst that happened is that you were made to wrongly belive that they would sate you, but your prediction was wrong, so you improve it for next time. Remember, even hypnosis can't overrule individual will, only brainwashing (which isn't a thing yet). Take the opposite approach, central planning. In central planning, you are given little to no choices. You will be assigned the resources and roles you need according to the central planner. Even if the planner is democratic, your influence is reduced to a single vote, which is guaranteed to be erased by the law of large numbers. And that's ignoring external factor to you that are in control of the central planner: the psychlogists you mentioned still exist, but now they work for the planner instead. We can argue that people are currently led into making poor choices in the market, but to conclude that this means no choice is being made is wrong. In a market, we can improve people's choices. In centralized systems, "people's choices" aren't a thing.