6 ms·

I think this is basically why so many nerds become Libertarians. Unfortunately, reality is messy and complicated and not a computer program.

by TillE 12y ago

nova 12y ago
So let's keep making it more complicated, then.
- mpyne 12y ago
  Nah, probably easier to keep pretending that it's super-simple to manage humans at scale just because it's easier to reason about.
briandh 12y ago
> Unfortunately, reality is messy and complicated and not a computer program. > Nah, probably easier to keep pretending that it's super-simple to manage humans at scale just because it's easier to reason about. This canard about libertarians [1] not understanding the complexity of the real world is oft-repeated, but it is misguided, and comes off as condescending to boot.[2] The likes of Hayek and Friedman did not contend that reality is simple; they contended that it was complex -- too complex for economic systems based on expansive government intervention (socialism, mercantilism, etc) to grapple with and produce satisfactory outcomes. They advocated a free market system on the premise that it was the best way to handle this complexity, not on the basis that it doesn't exist. Now, you are free to question whether empirical evidence bears out either point. But it is ignorant to suggest libertarianism is based on eschewing complexity. 1. Here I am referring mostly to libertarians of a consequentialist lean. Libertarians of a mostly deontological lean are orthogonal to this discussion because whether or not they understand the world's complexity is mostly immaterial to their policy prescriptions, as they are concerned mostly with morality, not outcomes. 2. Usually unintentionally, I would hope, though it seems that at least with mpyne it is not.
- mjburgess 12y ago
  > They advocated a free market system on the premise that it was the best way to handle this complexity, not on the basis that it doesn't exist. They shifted simplicity from society to the individual. So if the social was complex it was nevertheless based on a the motives of simple individuals. That is, people are selfish rational actors. The problem is that they arent. Libertarian models of humans are incredibly simplistic.
  - briandh 12y ago
    > That is, people are selfish rational actors. The problem is that they arent. Libertarian models of humans are incredibly simplistic. I can't speak to Friedman, but Hayek's views were more subtle than that (and so are mine, for what little it matters). He recognized many limitations on the rationality of economic actors; he advocated what today would probably be referred to as bounded rationality. http://books.google.com/books?id=CdI9VRcn1SEC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=hayek+rationality&source=bl&ots=BbdMowKGuW&sig=BNarY7e-dXDGcT4drh6gr4QwNzs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ImHBU7_VM4yoyATPioHoCA&ved=0CFQQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=hayek%20rationality&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=CdI9VRcn1SEC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA... http://books.google.com/books?id=Dc1s6zB8Ee8C&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=hayek+rationality&source=bl&ots=ldf6TOEIvn&sig=DGoAo-xJ3Oh1AHp377NZrazSSic&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ImHBU7_VM4yoyATPioHoCA&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=hayek%20rationality&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=Dc1s6zB8Ee8C&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8... http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/9781137278159.0015 http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/97811372... (same book) http://www.georgesoros.com/interviews-speeches/entry/why_i_agree_with_some_of_friedrich_hayek/ http://www.georgesoros.com/interviews-speeches/entry/why_i_a... http://people.duke.edu/~alexrose/Darwintosoros.pdf http://people.duke.edu/~alexrose/Darwintosoros.pdf
    - mjburgess 12y ago
      Even bounded rationality is totally wrong. Human behaviour isnt (economically) rational "except for limitations". The very source of the value we place upon institutions, people, goals, etc. is entirely a product of the interaction between culture and basic psychological drives. People do not have "preferences" in the strong propositional sense required for modelling. They have drives, ideals, etc. These can be systematized by asking them to rank states of affairs but even here things are delicate (which is why polling on issues is generally useless). Any kind of "rationality" talk is extremely prescriptive in practice: failing to actually look at the world and describe it, libertarians et al. go around theorizing in an ahistorical vacuum with pseudo-computer human stand-ins. And criticise actions in the real world that dont conform.
baddox 12y ago
I don't think that the proposals of most libertarians are any more or less complex than the proposals of American liberals, or American conservatives, or democratic socialists, or fascists, etc. Certain aspects of plans obvious vary in complexity, but that's hardly the distinguishing factor.

I think this is basically why so many nerds become Libertarians. Unfortunately, reality is messy and complicated and not a computer program.

by TillE 12y ago

I think this is basically why so many nerds become Libertarians. Unfortunately, reality is messy and complicated and not a computer program.

nova 12y ago

So let's keep making it more complicated, then.

mpyne 12y ago
Nah, probably easier to keep pretending that it's super-simple to manage humans at scale just because it's easier to reason about.

briandh 12y ago

> Unfortunately, reality is messy and complicated and not a computer program. > Nah, probably easier to keep pretending that it's super-simple to manage humans at scale just because it's easier to reason about. This canard about libertarians [1] not understanding the complexity of the real world is oft-repeated, but it is misguided, and comes off as condescending to boot.[2] The likes of Hayek and Friedman did not contend that reality is simple; they contended that it was complex -- too complex for economic systems based on expansive government intervention (socialism, mercantilism, etc) to grapple with and produce satisfactory outcomes. They advocated a free market system on the premise that it was the best way to handle this complexity, not on the basis that it doesn't exist. Now, you are free to question whether empirical evidence bears out either point. But it is ignorant to suggest libertarianism is based on eschewing complexity. 1. Here I am referring mostly to libertarians of a consequentialist lean. Libertarians of a mostly deontological lean are orthogonal to this discussion because whether or not they understand the world's complexity is mostly immaterial to their policy prescriptions, as they are concerned mostly with morality, not outcomes. 2. Usually unintentionally, I would hope, though it seems that at least with mpyne it is not.

mjburgess 12y ago
> They advocated a free market system on the premise that it was the best way to handle this complexity, not on the basis that it doesn't exist. They shifted simplicity from society to the individual. So if the social was complex it was nevertheless based on a the motives of simple individuals. That is, people are selfish rational actors. The problem is that they arent. Libertarian models of humans are incredibly simplistic.
- briandh 12y ago
  > That is, people are selfish rational actors. The problem is that they arent. Libertarian models of humans are incredibly simplistic. I can't speak to Friedman, but Hayek's views were more subtle than that (and so are mine, for what little it matters). He recognized many limitations on the rationality of economic actors; he advocated what today would probably be referred to as bounded rationality. http://books.google.com/books?id=CdI9VRcn1SEC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=hayek+rationality&source=bl&ots=BbdMowKGuW&sig=BNarY7e-dXDGcT4drh6gr4QwNzs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ImHBU7_VM4yoyATPioHoCA&ved=0CFQQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=hayek%20rationality&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=CdI9VRcn1SEC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA... http://books.google.com/books?id=Dc1s6zB8Ee8C&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=hayek+rationality&source=bl&ots=ldf6TOEIvn&sig=DGoAo-xJ3Oh1AHp377NZrazSSic&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ImHBU7_VM4yoyATPioHoCA&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=hayek%20rationality&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=Dc1s6zB8Ee8C&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8... http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/9781137278159.0015 http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/97811372... (same book) http://www.georgesoros.com/interviews-speeches/entry/why_i_agree_with_some_of_friedrich_hayek/ http://www.georgesoros.com/interviews-speeches/entry/why_i_a... http://people.duke.edu/~alexrose/Darwintosoros.pdf http://people.duke.edu/~alexrose/Darwintosoros.pdf
  - mjburgess 12y ago
    Even bounded rationality is totally wrong. Human behaviour isnt (economically) rational "except for limitations". The very source of the value we place upon institutions, people, goals, etc. is entirely a product of the interaction between culture and basic psychological drives. People do not have "preferences" in the strong propositional sense required for modelling. They have drives, ideals, etc. These can be systematized by asking them to rank states of affairs but even here things are delicate (which is why polling on issues is generally useless). Any kind of "rationality" talk is extremely prescriptive in practice: failing to actually look at the world and describe it, libertarians et al. go around theorizing in an ahistorical vacuum with pseudo-computer human stand-ins. And criticise actions in the real world that dont conform.

baddox 12y ago

I don't think that the proposals of most libertarians are any more or less complex than the proposals of American liberals, or American conservatives, or democratic socialists, or fascists, etc. Certain aspects of plans obvious vary in complexity, but that's hardly the distinguishing factor.