Are humans rational? (1 Viewer)

[jennyfromdabloc]

Either way, free markets are still the best option.

If people are rational, then they can make rational choices for themselves, so intervention is unnecessary.

If people are irrational, free markets are still best because democracy depends on all people voting (including the irrational people) and so not only will the irrational people make bad decision for themselves, but the political process will allow them to impose bad decisions on others.

 

[moll.]

If people are irrational, free markets are still best because democracy depends on all people voting (including the irrational people) and so not only will the irrational people make bad decision for themselves, but the political process will allow them to impose bad decisions on others.

lolwut?

 

[murphyad]

Either way, free markets are still the best option........

Cool. That's totally irrelevant. Also, your explanation makes zero sense.

+1 to moll

 

[loquasagacious]

If you agree that theyre irrational, how can we do anything other than let 'them' make mistakes?? Are we referring to a new super class of computers who could free us from the tyranny of free will if we flick their switches and let them??

Government intervention.

 

[Iron]

And that's rational because of
checks and balances? sop? ^_^?

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Cool. That's totally irrelevant. Also, your explanation makes zero sense.

+1 to moll

The OP specifically said "The idea of a rational human underpins economics and indeed the concepts of a free society and a free market generally." What I said was completely relevant.

What don't you understand?

If people are irrational individually, what reason do we have to think that these same people will behave rationally when acting collectively? If government intervention does not lead to more rational decision making, then there is not justification for the expense and violence of government intervention.

 

[eye ov azazel]

Government intervention.

intervention by people who themselves may be corrupted.

a great person once said: "humans are doomed because we, as a species, are cunts." (something along the lines of that)

but yea, whats to say that the intervener wont be corrupted either?

it all comes down to the individual. Everyone's different, and we need to accept the fact that there are rational and irrational people out there, and we need to know how to deal with this.

 

[Iron]

Na I agree that government is necessary because it creates an institutional knowledge/forum for genuine debate which leads to far more rational decisions than an individual can make

 

[Phoenix Fury]

na i agree that government is necessary because it creates an institutional knowledge/forum for genuine debate which leads to far more rational decisions than an individual can make

+ 1

 

[murphyad]

The OP specifically said "The idea of a rational human underpins economics and indeed the concepts of a free society and a free market generally." What I said was completely relevant.

Granted, but we're more talking about human rationality than the benefits of the free market to either case.

If people are irrational individually, what reason do we have to think that these same people will behave rationally when acting collectively? If government intervention does not lead to more rational decision making, then there is not justification for the expense and violence of government intervention.

Man-on-the-street example:

I irrationally believe in Proposition A. My friend, Jimbob, does not hold this same irrational belief and says to me, "murphyad, you're a loon. How can you possibly believe in Proposition A? It's irrational because [presents logical and reasoned argument]" Inspired by the wisdom of my colleague, I stop irrationally believing in Proposition A. Thus we have used the magic of group discussion to think more 'rationally' as a whole.

If you are suggesting that individual irrationality cannot lead to group rationality, you are essentially suggesting that all individuals are the same, that they all think irrationally about the same things. How can you hold this belief as a libertarian who professes the unsurpassed value of the individual?

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Na I agree that government is necessary because it creates an institutional knowledge/forum for genuine debate which leads to far more rational decisions than an individual can make

The government does not create a forum for public debate at all. It creates a tiny closed forum for pointless discussion between no more than a few hundred individuals.

So much more real discussion takes place on the internet, or simply between interested parties. Without the government people could make decisions at a grass roots level through local community organizations, charities, and security and dispute resolution organizations. People could get much more involved in how their communities are run and have much more choice, rather than having policy dictated to them by a centralized bureaucracy.

 

[eye ov azazel]

Na I agree that government is necessary because it creates an institutional knowledge/forum for genuine debate which leads to far more rational decisions than an individual can make

yea i agree.

many minds at work is better than 1

 

[Sarebs]

if you were rational you wouldnt give out gobbies as a way of paying back someone for giving their brother a gobbie

Oh yes, there are many aspects of my irrationality.

 

[loquasagacious]

Na I agree that government is necessary because it creates an institutional knowledge/forum for genuine debate which leads to far more rational decisions than an individual can make

I fundamentally disagree.

Governments can not possibly be more rational than markets because markets have so much more information. Governments can harness the information available to experts and analysts but not whole populations. Even if a Government could efficiently harness the information/knowledge/expertise of 100,000 public servants (which they can't) then a marketplace of 10,000,000 would still have vastly more information and be able to reach decisions far quicker.

Central planning doesn't work because governments can not make decisions good on behalf of people.

 

[Iron]

what? i was speaking more generally against anarchy. Why would the market necessarily care about rules against murder and rape etc? In a way it actively promotes the triumph of the strong over the weak. It has no conscience, it is not human, unlike government

 

[KFunk]

Governments can not possibly be more rational than markets because markets have so much more information.

Suppose that we grant you the claim that markets 'possess' more information than governments - why does it then follow that government intervention cannot lead to more rational outcomes?

 

[KFunk]

Central planning doesn't work because governments can not make decisions good on behalf of people.

I personally don't think that we have to fall into the dichotomy of the free-market versus an entirely planned economy. Why not make the most of both approaches?

As someone in favour of limited forms of intervention I would allow the market to reign in certain areas whilst advocating intervention wherever the market is inadequate - e.g. where it is shaped by power structures rather than individual choice, or tends towards crisis, or wherever 'failure' of one form or another occurs.

 

[loquasagacious]

Suppose that we grant you the claim that markets 'possess' more information than governments - why does it then follow that government intervention cannot lead to more rational outcomes?

Governments can therefore only make decisions on the incomplete information that they have. While the decision may be rational in that context in the larger societal context it may be completely irrational because of that missing information.

I personally don't think that we have to fall into the dichotomy of the free-market versus an entirely planned economy. Why not make the most of both approaches?

As someone in favour of limited forms of intervention I would allow the market to reign in certain areas whilst advocating intervention wherever the market is inadequate - e.g. where it is shaped by power structures rather than individual choice, or tends towards crisis, or wherever 'failure' of one form or another occurs.

I agree that it is to often presented as a false-dichotomy - especially by those on the libertarian end of things. While the anarcho-capitalists are of course opposed to the state I think that the majority or libertarians, classical-liberals, etc accept the need for a state in some limited form.

The issue with market intervention is defining just what a market failure is. The term tends to be used very subjectively to define any market outcome which is contrary to the beliefs of the observer in question.

Is a minimum wage an appropriate intervention to prevent the market from failing to pay a 'fair wage'? Are debt-bubbles, capital flights, excess capacity, etc etc market failures or self-correction?

 

[volition]

what? i was speaking more generally against anarchy. Why would the market necessarily care about rules against murder and rape etc? In a way it actively promotes the triumph of the strong over the weak. It has no conscience, it is not human, unlike government

Iron
1. Based on how you wrote, I suspect that you are forgetting what a market really is: a matrix of interactions/exchanges between consenting individuals. What you are doing is mischaracterisation because the market is not an entity that can "care" about rules, it is merely the aggregation of people's preferences. Anyway I think you will find that most people prefer to live in a society that has rules against murder and theft so your objection doesn't really work here.

2. Markets are built on rules, such as property rules. If you accept that there are private property rules and that each individual is the owner of their own body (which is generally what libertarians argue for) well then murder and theft are clearly against that and offences of this type may be taken to private courts or insurance agencies.

I personally don't think that we have to fall into the dichotomy of the free-market versus an entirely planned economy. Why not make the most of both approaches?

KFunk, I did a blog post that's relevant here: Middle of the Road Policy

 

[Ben1220]

It's near impossible to tell whether a human being is rational or not, as the definition of what is rational and what is irrational changes from person to person according the their morals, beliefs, religion etc.

However, according to what i think being rational is - as a collective set, the human race is very irrational - we are instinctive, we do what we do to make us happy and indulge in things which satisfy us, and we usually dont compromise ourselves for anyone else. For example, if we were rational, all countries would meet together to tackle all the battles/wars occurring between countries. But because we are somewhat irrational, we put our induldges infront of rational decisions. Thats what i think anyways.

Yeah I agree. All our wars and disagreements really look pretty petty if you step back a bit. I mean if an alien race declared war on planet earth I think that "world peace" would come pretty quickly...