Why do lolbertarians think people make rational economic decisions 100% of the time? Why do they think that people solely by things based off logical conclusion as to what will benefit them the most? Are they autistic?
Do they think that whenever an alcoholic buys another bottle of vodka, they're acting in their "rational self-interest?" Or how about people who are aware of the massive animals rights abuses and over-reliance of antibotics in the meat in industry, but still buy meat anyway because they're not vegetarians?
And don't get me started on their boner for believing in economic "choice." Do you really think a farmer from an isolated area is really going to drive an extra two hours to get his teeth fixed at a dentist across state lines, just so he can save 20% compared to his regular dentist in his town? Never mind the fact that the whole modern concept of advertising is *literally* designed to get people to buy shit out of emotions, not rational decision making. Otherwise, why would celebrity endorsements be so popular? A pair of sports shoes from Nike is no more or less better than any other brand, but impressionable people will fork over $150 more for a Nike pair because they're "endorsed" by Michael Jordan.
Seriously, it's like the concept of emotional decision making doesn't even come into their framework. That's probably why they're so bad with people.
>>66055200
>Do they think that whenever an alcoholic buys another bottle of vodka, they're acting in their "rational self-interest?"
who the fuck are you to tell someone what is in their own self-interest you fucking commie
>>66055295
I'm not saying that all, retard. I'm just saying that it's clearly NOT in an alcoholics "rational self-interest" to continue buying alcohol.
>>66055200
>Do they think that whenever an alcoholic buys another bottle of vodka, they're acting in their "rational self-interest?"
Yeah we should only get the 300ml authorized by the government per month right you fucking commie
>>66055571
Again, I'm not saying that. Don't put shit in my mouth, it's poor form.
>>66055540
Please tell me what is good for me comrade, please do what is best for me you fucking commie
>>66055540
Why not? he wants to buy that let the man buy what he fucking wants you filthy pinko
>>66055642
.. are you seriously trying to argue that alcoholism is harmless?
>>66055656
That's not what I'm arguing here at all, chucklefuck. Read my argument. I'm not arguing we should restrict people's abilities to purchase what they what, I'm arguing that people "buying what they want" isn't always motivated solely by self-benefit. I swear to god, you troglodytes have no concept of subtlety.
>>66055733
As long as it harms no one but himself and he can support his habit then what is the issue?
>>66055733
How is it not self benefit though? People want things because they satisfy their wants and needs, not benefit their health or society or something
>>66055770
this, answer the question you filthy socialist cunt, I bet you support bernie you retard
>retards trying to pick apart a single example
>missing the point this hard
>>66055733
>.. are you seriously trying to argue that alcoholism is harmless?
so far the only thing i've hurt is myself 2bh and i'm okay with that
got a weird lump in my throat i should get checked out
>>66055200
>Why do lolbertarians think people make rational economic decisions 100% of the time?
no one says that.
>>66055200
>Why do lolbertarians think people make rational economic decisions 100% of the time?
Since when do libertarians think that? How is that relevant to libertarian theory?
They just don't want to have to suffer when YOU make an irrational decision.
>>66056027
>op gets refuted and asked a counter question
>op can't answer the question
>turns off his phones wifi and posts under a different ID
Crikey, did the commie insult get you that bad
>>66055540
>I'm not saying that all, retard. I'm just saying that it's clearly NOT in an alcoholics "rational self-interest" to continue buying alcohol.
Withdrawal from alcohol can kill bro.
OP is a filthy pinko dumb cunt. 100% from Melbourne. I'm sick of dealing with these pieces of trash at Uni.
>>66055200
Terrible thread but this wiki article is food for thought:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality
>>66055200
>Why do lolbertarians think people make rational economic decisions 100% of the time?
They don't you retard
>>66056446
>>66056446
My uni had a seminar today on sexism in capitalism. I sometimes wish I was more a part of my unis societies and shit but then I see Marxism posters everywhere and I'm glad I just go home after class
>>66055733
>are you seriously trying to argue that alcoholism is harmless
Let's say that we put up the price of alcohol to dissuade the alcoholic from drinking. What if the alcoholic commits suicide instead, because he can't handle reality?
You have to realise that just because someone's choosing to do something you regard as bad doesn't mean they'd do something better if you stop them.
>>66055621
>Don't put shit in my mouth, it's poor form.
He says after making a giant straw-man argument for libertarians.
I think libertarians are the only non-mainstream people on /pol/ that actually argue for their opinions instead of memeing constantly.
>>66055733
>I'm arguing that people "buying what they want" isn't always motivated solely by self-benefit
According to who? You? In a liberterian society people like you get told to mind their own business if you meddle with somebody who isn't hurting anyone.
Now if the alcoholic is a public menace of some kind, that's a different situation.
>>66057186
Is it really arguing when you ask why a man thinks he knows what in someone's best interests and he can't reply?
>>66057320
This isn't a prime example, but I remember having long threads about free markets and individual liberty before with massive amounts of debate.
Also yes, this man is the classic nanny state supporter. How could you expect him to be able to comprehend respecting others' life choices?
>>66057541
I wish I knew more about economics, I work as a physiotherapist so all my time was spent learning about the body. Slowly learning about it now, reading sowells basic economics.
Do you have any readings you would recommend, libertarian or not? I'll need to go deeper into economics for sure but something on liberty or something would be a nice read now.
>>66055733
The whole point is that you misunderstand libertarians or are simply deliberately attacking a strawman. Man is a rational animal that acts rationally in pursuit of his own subjective preferences. Libertarians generally simply tend to think that it is hubris (and some would say fascist) to suppose that you know better than someone else what that other person should do with their time/resources - that you have no right to make that judgment and certainly no right to impose it upon them (or upon others in their name).
His argument isn't the best but his side is.
How about another question. I read earlier on /pol/ about someone complaining that his buddy wanted to start his own garage to repair cards because he had the space and the tools but the government refused to allow him to because he didn't have the proper permits. How unfair, he lamented, that our government won't let a man use his own property to start his own business!
Now look at it another way. Does his friend know chemistry well enough to make good decisions about how to properly dispose of his chemicals?
Does his friend know enough hydrology to know about the fluids cars leak on his property that can end up in the local water supply?
Does his friend know enough meteorology to know the effects of engine fluids that can evaporate into the atmosphere?
Does his friend know enough about physics, geology, biology, medicine, mechanics, engineering, and so on to properly maintain a garage that will effect everyone?
The problem is you people are too stupid to realize that nobody is informed enough to make decisions that affect everyone and your libertarian society will never exist because it's retarded.
So long as you act like retards I will do everything in my power to vote for people that will keep you down.
>>66057731
>Man is a rational animal that acts rationally in pursuit of his own subjective preferences
>rational animal
>subjective preferences
These two things are not compatible.
>>66055973
I understand this, but this argument is also defeated because people who routinely self-harm (whether that's through alcohol, drugs, obesity, etc.) put a greater burden on the health system, which everyone has to pay for. Your private decisions can and often DO have a public consequence.
And to everyone else calling me a "pinko commie who thinks he knows what's better for everyone", come at me faggots, I just got back from smoking down a couple of cigarettes. Thats why I'm only replying now. I know fully well that it's my individual right to poison my body as I see fit, but I'm also self-aware enough to realise that my compulsions aren't in the benefit of myself or anybody else.
>>66055200
>Why do lolbertarians think people make rational economic decisions 100% of the time?
Do we? Last I heard, libertarianism was a huge advocate of personal responsibility.
>Do they think that whenever an alcoholic buys another bottle of vodka, they're acting in their "rational self-interest?"
He may or may not, none of my business as long as I'm not forced to suffer along with him (externalities).
>Do you really think a farmer from an isolated area is really going to drive an extra two hours to get his teeth fixed at a dentist across state lines, just so he can save 20% compared to his regular dentist in his town?
I can see a couple dozen of life choices that drove him to be exposed to small-town monopolies. Anyway, he will do it if that's the only option he can afford.
>A pair of sports shoes from Nike is no more or less better than any other brand, but impressionable people will fork over $150 more for a Nike pair because they're "endorsed" by Michael Jordan.
See, you believe you're smarter than other people, therefore your authoritarianism and paternalism leads you to believe that you can tell others what to do. Guess what, there will always be someone smarter, stronger or richer than you who will think he can lead your life against your decisions. Capitalism is about win-win trades in subjective terms, for me, having fashionable shoes may make me happier than having 150$ in my pocket.
>Seriously, it's like the concept of emotional decision making doesn't even come into their framework
Of course it doesn't, now explain why it should other than "muh feelings".
DAILY REMINDER
libertardian's and ancap's faith in the free market is religious
>>66057684
Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics (5th Ed) is a really easy read. No technical language though, which can be useful if you want to talk or debate with people who have studied the subject formally.
http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465060730/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1456996322&sr=1-1&keywords=basic+economics+thomas+sowell
Free Market Economics: An Introduction for the General Reader by Steven Kates (2nd Ed) is better for that and is also more in-depth.
http://www.amazon.com/Free-Market-Economics-Introduction-General/dp/1782547967
>>66055200
OP has shut down /pol/ with this single post.
>>66058008
>rational animal
>subjective preferences
>These two things are not compatible.
So it is more rational to enjoy the colour blue than the colour red, for example? Or are you saying that you're not allowed to have preferences and be rational?
Either you're saying that every activity/preference can be objectively weighed against another or you're saying that free will cannot be rational.
>>66058008
>put a greater burden on the health system, which everyone has to pay for.
This I agree with, which is why there shouldn't be a public healthcare system. I fucking hate how I have to wear a helmet when I hope on my bike to ride down the road to grab milk from the local store but if I crack my head open its you who pays the bill. Let me ride my bike without my helmet and let me deal with my own hospital fees
>>66058101
DAILY REMINDER
socialists' and communists' faith in central planning is religious
>>66058097
>Do we? Last I heard, libertarianism was a huge advocate of personal responsibility.
Ok, I admit it was bit of a strawman, but whenever libertarian economics is brought up the main moral argument I see mentioned is that "people will always act in their own self-interest." This just isn't true, for a number of reasons.
>He may or may not, none of my business as long as I'm not forced to suffer along with him (externalities).
What if his "choice" to become an alcoholic was because of a lifetime of sexual abuse as a child? Why should it be only his responsibility to act rationally, when his emotional and mental state has been severely compromised by past factors? Do we ignore his plight because his decision to buy booze is only "his" imperative?
>I can see a couple dozen of life choices that drove him to be exposed to small-town monopolies. Anyway, he will do it if that's the only option he can afford.
Life choices, right, such as.. being born there? Not having the financial means to move somewhere else?
>Capitalism is about win-win trades in subjective
Again, you admit that motivations are completely subjective. So then, how can you argue that people act in a "rational" sense when there is no universal concept of what is "rational" in the first place?
>Of course it doesn't, now explain why it should other than "muh feelings".
Because.. that's literally how the world works? Emotional decision making is quite often how people make decisions, to deny this fact is to deny the flawed humanity that we all share.
>>66058376
It's not like making people wear bike helmets reduces fatalities anyway, if not it increases them.
>>66058495
I agree but you get what I mean, the point I was trying to get across is there. I should have used a different example, maybe seatbelts in cars but again I'm not sure what the data is on their safety, maybe I'd be wrong again.
I just fucking hate wearing a helmet when I'm riding down the street at 6 in the morning in my shorts to get fucking milk
>>66058336
It's not clear from my post, but the core of my argument is that, if taken to its logical extreme, the whole idea of "rationalism" completely falls apart, because people will always have competing ideas about what is the ultimate good. This goes beyond just having preferences for certain colours.
For example, a money-driven businessman might see personal material success is the ultimate good, and therefore only value people on their ability to innovate and get ahead, at the expense of welfare systems that support people who don't share these abilities. Meanwhile, a more humanitarian-focused person might see human dignity and comfort as the ultimate good, and therefore value support systems that provide for all people, at the expense of economic growth and business acumen. In a libertarian system, both people will act to promote their ideas of an "ultimate good," but these efforts will ultimately clash as both are wildly incompabitle.
>>66058439
I agree
>>66055200
>Do you really think a farmer from an isolated area is really going to drive an extra two hours to get his teeth fixed at a dentist across state lines, just so he can save 20% compared to his regular dentist in his town?
Considering how much most dentists seem to charge, yes? If not, that's just the price the farmer is willing to pay for the extra convenience of the service
>mfw commies try to economics
>>66058797
What a lovely thread
>>66058449
>"people will always act in their own self-interest."
Not exactly, people will try to act in their own self-interest. They're not always successful.
>What if his "choice" to become an alcoholic was because of a lifetime of sexual abuse as a child?
He's acting in what he thinks is his own self-interest. Perhaps he can't figure out any other way to escape the pain.
>Life choices, right, such as.. being born there?
While this is a good point, it would be terrible to regulate the prices of every small rural town's businesses. Part of why their prices are so high are to compensate from having to deliver stock to a inconvenient location. If you make them sell at prices of a inner-city business, no one at all will operate a business in a small town.
>how can you argue that people act in a "rational" sense when there is no universal concept of what is "rational" in the first place
I don't think you get the point. The point is not that there are 'rational' things to do in life, the point is that people take rational routes to achieve them.
>>66055200
>Why do lolbertarians think people make rational economic decisions 100% of the time?
We don't.
Clearly we don't.
The rest of your post rests on that false premise, therefore is false.
Also healthcare used to be insanely cheap and of high quality in a free market.
>>66055200
>Do you really think a farmer from an isolated area is really going to drive an extra two hours to get his teeth fixed at a dentist across state lines, just so he can save 20% compared to his regular dentist in his town?
>tfw best friend is dentist
>tfw he spends 2 months of the year going around the country doing charity work in rural places
And Hes a libertarian kek
>>66058797
I can go again :^)
DAILY REMINDER
social democrats' and centrists' faith in the mixed market is religious
>>66058101
>faith in the free market
That's like saying you have "faith" in science.
>wanting to be free is a religion
>wanting to be a slave and have other people make decisions for you is not religious
AYY LMAO
DUDE FREE MARKET LMAO
>>66058008
>>66058719
>people will always have competing ideas about what is the ultimate good
And this is why libertarians object to the efforts of anybody to impose any one of these arbitrary subjective values upon others. The businessman will succeed only to the extent that he is able to provide benefits to others, while the humanitarian can feel free to provide all the charitable benefits he desires or can persuade others to contribute to. Which may just include the businessman, if only for good press. And - shock - the humanitarian may well be able to do what he wants to do more effectively because the businessman's ruthless pursuit of profit has produced products that dramatically reduce the overhead required to do humanitarian work (like, say, a powerful computer that fits in a pocket), which would never have existed without the self-interested drive of the businessman.
How are these mutually exclusive? Except to the extent that the "humanitarian" feels himself justified in taking the businessman's property at gunpoint to distribute to others, leaving the businessman disinclined to produce any more wonders.
>>66058449
>Ok, I admit it was bit of a strawman, but whenever libertarian economics is brought up the main moral argument I see mentioned is that people will always act in their own self-interest
People always act on their own perception of self-interest. Libertarians believe that nobody other than themselves know what's better for them. I believe that you're trying to expose mentally unstable people as a common occurrence to make your point.
>Life choices, right, such as.. being born there? Not having the financial means to move somewhere else?
Well, first of all I'm humoring your example even though it seems highly illogical, dentists in Spain are cheaper than dentists in Germany. A small town dentist will have to adapt his prices to what people can afford, otherwise he will go out of business quick, while people in the village lose their teeth without giving a shit. This teeth perfection we currently have is only a consequence of the growth of wealth we experimented recently, back in the days, if people couldn't afford a dentist, they didn't go, doesn't seem like abusing a monopoly situation will go well for the dentist.
But even if I do humor your argument, it seems like not having the financial means to move somewhere else is leading him to not having the financial means to get his teeth fixed at a proper price. Being born somewhere is not an excuse for staying there all your life, I'm not Maltese yet here I am, making choices. If staying in a village, not learning a trade to serve in a way society wants, aren't personal choices which one has to be responsible for, then I don't know what they are.
>Again, you admit that motivations are completely subjective. So then, how can you argue that people act in a rational sense when there is no universal concept of what is rational in the first place?
I never denied that motivations are subjective, I just denied your (or anybody's) capabilities to tell anyone that their motivations are worse than yours...cont/
You really dont thimk people know whats best for them? Even if its not 100% of the time, dont you think they know better than the state or society?
>>66058933
Inner-city businesses, at least in America, charge rather higher prices than suburban stores. Smaller floor space and higher rent with a limited geographic "pull" factor means limited inventory that sits there for longer, while suburban stores can pull people from miles around, who will buy in bulk (much, much cheaper for a cashier to process 1 person buying 100 items than 10 people buying 10 each). Niggers mean more product stolen and property damage that must be recouped with higher prices. The list goes on.
>>66058933
>Not exactly, people will try to act in their own self-interest. They're not always successful.
So doesn't this turn libertarian theory on its head? The whole moral argument against government intervention from libertarians is that people ultimately know what's best from them, even when, as you admit, this isn't the case. Now of course, government stepping in and nanny-stating every aspect of life isn't the answer to this, but it sort of destroys the notion that society at large will be a more moral place if people just looked out for their own interests.
>>66058933
>He's acting in what he thinks is his own self-interest. Perhaps he can't figure out any other way to escape the pain.
Fair enough, but there can and do exist programs that help alcoholics and other drug addicts to genuinely overcome past trauma and ween off the drug, and a lot of them are government-run. Being a depressed alcoholic is not a life anyone deserves to live, and if society collectively has the means to reverse this, then why shouldn't we?
>While this is a good point, it would be terrible to regulate the prices of every small rural town's businesses. Part of why their prices are so high are to compensate from having to deliver stock to a inconvenient location. If you make them sell at prices of a inner-city business, no one at all will operate a business in a small town.
Fair enough. Again, I'm not arguing for universal government regulations that level the playing field entirely, I was just using that as an example of people not always acting in their "financial self-interest."
(cont.)
>>66058719
>at the expense of welfare systems that support people who don't share these abilities
Of course we should be helping people to lead prosperous and comfortable lifestyles (albeit not through wellfare), but entrepreneurs who innovate are literally the most important people in the economy and the reason why we live such rich lives in the 21st century.
Even though I am a libertarian, I am very humanitarian-focused. The two ideas are not incompatible at all. The free market is the best mechanism for alleviating poverty that has ever existed, and I value this over its efficiency.
The other great thing about the free market is that even when people don't have social welfare in mind, enterprises can only be successful if they offer a product that people want, which increases social welfare.
>>66059323
>>66058933
>I don't think you get the point. The point is not that there are 'rational' things to do in life, the point is that people take rational routes to achieve them.
But not all things people do are beneficial or productive, to themselves or anyone else. And again, this is NOT to say that we should have some moral government body judging everything everyone does, but it IS to say that people, when left ENTIRELY to their own devices, can and do fall through the cracks.
>>66055200
ITT: Australians shitposting each other so hard they're imploding.
>>66059355
Where good-hearted people like you can step in and help them with private charity. Particularly from within the community, as the community can judge in a way that no outsider can whether the money is going to good use or to feed a drug addiction (and can provide tertiary support in a way that no government can). Without paying 1000 bureaucrats to spend the $20 left over.
>>66059323
>The whole moral argument against government intervention from libertarians is that people ultimately know what's best from them, even when, as you admit, this isn't the case
Of course, that's the strawman! People of course don't know what's the best for them! The point is that governments know even less what's best for people than themselves!
>there can and do exist programs that help alcoholics and other drug addicts to genuinely overcome past trauma and ween off the drug
Of course, the solution is dealing with addiction, not making the drug more expensive. The solution however is not forcing people to go to rehab, which could have dangerous consequences.
What people consider as reasonably healthy drinking habits are very out of line with the health lobby and I think it's dangerous for the government to decide how much you should be drinking.
>>66059451
Proof that Americans really do have no sense of humor nor know what shitposting actually is.
>>66055200
>make poor economic decisions
>suffer the consequences
Gee, that was hard. Why do statists think we should coddle people and not let them make mistakes?
>>66055200
Well this is where the state should come into play. We believe in liberty and not anarchy, and sometimes the government will need to step in and do things. We just want to make sure it's a small and efficient government rather than one that unnecessarily interferes.
>>66055200
Spot on, OP. On the other hand, libertarians love to criticise governments, even if they are democratically elected. They seem to have full faith in consumers and none in voters.
OP here. Little drunk now. I could keep responding, but my debating fire has been snuffed out.
For what it's worth, I think libertarians are the most respectable of all right-wingers, and are many orders of magnitude more preferable to the moralising neocons who currently dominate right-wing discourse. I just also have a few beefs with how you guys perceive society to function, and as a result will never 100% agree with you.
Either way, keep being productive members of society and looking out for your families.
>>66059932
Because consumers aren't about to impose their laws and the like upon you
>>66059932
More, not full. This is because consuming is more efficient than voting.
>>66060002
Sorry I called you a commie, great thread and good discussion mate.
It's not a perfect ideology but it's the best we've got so far imo. Take it easy mate
>>66060002
Have a good one, man.
Watch out though, we can still be moralising sometimes. :^)
>>66055200
>Why do lolbertarians think people make rational economic decisions 100% of the time?
They don't. They assume the money will flow into the hands of the people who make the best decisions.
>>66055540
t. Tovarishch
>>66060002
As opposed to the moralizing SJWs who currently dominate left-wing discourse? And the media? And universities? I'd rather right-wingers fighting a defensive action than left-wingers who think every little thing entitles them to imprison you for wrongthink.
>>66055200
by making an argument you presuppose self-ownership and Libertarianism.
You literally cannot argue your way out of this.
Also:
>people make bad 'economic decisions' (1) what is this mystical "economic decision" and based on what, your standard?)
>Therefore slavery
I'm sorry but even if you wanted to nail yourself onto a cross to absolve the sins of mankind, you are still doing exactly what you value.
>>66058719
utilitarian socialist tyrant detected, kill yourself, for the good of us all.
>>66060002
Amen
>>66060104
I disagree. I think people are more conscious when it comes to casting their vote, compared to when they are just buying stuff. Both are politics, but the former is a lot more transparent.
>>66055733
Dude. The idea is that the alcoholic is acting in his self interest. His utility is maximized (based on the information he has) when buying the booze. Otherwise he wouldn't do so. The long term effects may be negative, but he finds the short term benefit more valuable.
