When I get in debates about the possibility of a free society many people not familiar or against a free society make the claim that it could never work because not everyone is rational. To me being rational just means having the ability to use reason to make choices and figure out the world around you but it seems like most people use a different definition.
Am I missing something or is the "all humans are rational" argument made in terms of economics and not in general?
somehow because people are fallible free societies can't work, but slave societies can. go figure.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
They are just using a different definition of rational.
Austrians tend to use "rational" in the Misesian sense, using means to achieve desired ends, purposeful action.
While they tend to use rational as, YOUR preferences and/or beliefs do not match mine. Thus you are irrational.
Its made in terms of economics I'm sure. The idea being that whatever choice the individual made while not under coercion being the decision the individual valued the most at the time it was made. Regret or ignorance has nothing to do with it. I might buy a piece of candy even though I know its bad for my health- but at the time I bought the candy I valued the taste of candy over my health.
Those people you debate are arguing against themselves since they think an "irrational" group of people should have centralized power over everyone else, and that those people should be elected to that position by the "irrational" populace.
Le Master:Those people you debate are arguing against themselves since they think an "irrational" group of people should have centralized power over everyone else, and that those people should be elected to that position by the "irrational" populace.
No no no, the overlords are wise, benevolent, all knowing (only the "rational" ideas), and only care for the good of the people!!!
Thanks for the replies guys. So is it safe to say that arguing with these people is useless and therefore I shouldn't waste my time? I mean I know I can't convince everyone of the viability of a free society but the effort seems worthwhile.
well its hard to say..... on its own without supporting arguments. <people are not infallible> does not directly entail <free societies are impossible>. There needs to be an argument connecting the two statements together...what are these peoples arguments?
<people most often have 2 arms and 2 legs> ... ????... <free societies are impossible>
the important bit is missing
underpants gnomes.
People tend to use the sense of the word rational to mean, supporting their long term or "normal" goals, in this case no, of course not everyone is rational. In terms of Austrian definitions and strictly speaking the term means doing what appears to be best to the individual based upon any information or values which the individual has at any particular point in time, and then of course any conscious human action is rational.
I`ve been doing the approach that LibertyStudent does. I listen to people and ask them questions about how they feel about the situation. I don`t tell them about my anarcho-capitalist views unlesss they ask, and if they do, I tell them to go to mises.org,cato.org, lewrockwell.com.
From time to time I debate with people. I have no delusions that I might convince anyone. I just do it for kicks, I actually enjoy debating at my college. The things that people say are hilarious.
``Education is not a merchandise, it`s a right, and everyone should have free education.``
`` Every terrian(whatever that means) has a right to 1000$ life salary,500$ for childre. It`s a right``
``We live in a world filled with capitalist pigs, capitalism is fascism``
Gotcha!
nirgrahamUK:somehow because people are fallible free societies can't work, but slave societies can. go figure.
There is a lot of truth in that.
It may in fact be true that John Tyrant is better at achieving his own ends than the average Joe. That doesn't entail that John Tyrant would be better at achieving Joe's ends if he made Joe's decisions for him. This is a very common fallacy. Not everyone is equally adept at using the available means to achieve their own chosen ends. It does not follow from this that those who are best at achieving their own ends using the available means would be better at achieving the ends of others who are less adept if empowered to make decisions in their stead.
Clayton -
liberty student: nirgrahamUK:somehow because people are fallible free societies can't work, but slave societies can. go figure. There is a lot of truth in that.
Unfortunately, yes.
Clayton,
Wouldn't the person you are arguing with first have to believe in your definition of "rational" in order to agree with what you wrote? So would it still be considered a fallacy if my definition of "rational" was something other than Man using means to achieve his ends?
The people you are arguing with are errecting a strawman. Rationality in economics just means that people act to achieve a certain end (which everyone before me has stated). It doesn't mean that what they choose to do will ultimately end up being in their best interest. But at the time they make that choice,they are maximizing the expected value of their future utility. So any time someone says "people make bad choices all the time" you can dismiss it because that has nothing to do with rationality.
Justinx0r,
So outside of economic discussions a different definition of "rational" should be used? I ask only because I took the standard Misesian definition of "rational" and applied it to all different subjects which may be the reason why so many people disagree.
Well economics is basically the study of how humans interact with each other so I wouldn't shy away from using that definition of rationality. The economic definition of rationality applies to people no matter what.
Austrianism adopts a very "weak" sense of rationality, i.e. purposeful behaviour. In that sense, yes. Other usages of the term (e.g. in an ethical or financial sense) differ in strength and so subsume smaller groups of individuals.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon,
What would you say is a "stronger" definition of rational?
Read pages 62 - 63.
Thanks will do.
rational late 14c., "endowed with reason," from L. rationalis "of or belonging to reason, reasonable," from ratio (gen. rationis ) "reckoning, calculation, reason" (see ratio).
Ratio: Reckoning, account, reason, judgement, consideration, system, manner, method
Meanings are important. The root traces back to the latin word ratio.
Lee:When I get in debates about the possibility of a free society many people not familiar or against a free society make the claim that it could never work because not everyone is rational. To me being rational just means having the ability to use reason to make choices and figure out the world around you but it seems like most people use a different definition. Am I missing something or is the "all humans are rational" argument made in terms of economics and not in general?
Well, as I understand it, their argument is that people make decisions that everyone, including them at a later time, would agree are bad decisions. For example they eat stuff that's going to give them diabetes, or they fail to save for retirement or buy insurance that protects them from financial ruin in case of an expensive disease. I certainly agree that humans are irrational in that way. But the proposed solution is always that therefore the state should provide these services, because people can't be expected to provide them for themselves. That means high taxes on junk food, government pensions and government health care.
The argument I make is that human irrationality isn't fixed. People are as irrational as they can be and as rational as they have to be. People are irrational precisely because the state subsidizes their irresponsibility. The result is that people becomes even more irrational.
nirgrahamUK:well its hard to say..... on its own without supporting arguments. <people are not infallible> does not directly entail <free societies are impossible>. There needs to be an argument connecting the two statements together...what are these peoples arguments? <people most often have 2 arms and 2 legs> ... ????... <free societies are impossible> the important bit is missing underpants gnomes.
Yeah, that's how it always works:
[Insert some truth about the universe]
???
Therefore, free societies are impossible.
To be frank, I think Mises had poor word choice when he claimed that humans behave rationally.
What he ment was that humans behave purposefully, that is that human action is not random, but is directed towards particular ends(what those ends are will vary somewhat from person to person, but we can make some generilzations).
People act in their own best/long-term interest. I cant count the number of people who think they can 'refute' Mises by asking 'Are drug users being 'rational' when they get high and harm their friends or family?'
Thats why I prefer the word 'purposeful' as opposed to 'rational', since it doesnt have the conontations that Mises never intented.
You are missing the context of the debate. Mises was refuting Max Weber's definition of rational and non-rational action. See Mises, Epistemological Problems of Economics pp. 88-92.
Clayton, Wouldn't the person you are arguing with first have to believe in your definition of "rational" in order to agree with what you wrote? So would it still be considered a fallacy if my definition of "rational" was something other than Man using means to achieve his ends?
Well, if you believe human nature to be something other than what it is, then yes, my statement would not be correct.
I wasn't trying to directly answer your question in the OP, only to give you a pointer on where I think this common fallacy arises. Think of the parent-child relationship, for example. The parent may make decisions on the child's behalf (for example, administering an enema to prevent dehydration and death) in order to achieve the child's own ends (comfort, survival), even over the objections of the child who is choosing the wrong means (avoidance of the short-term pain of the enema) to achieve his/her ends. People apply this reasoning to doctor-patient, lawyer-client, judge-convictee, policeman-suspect, bureaucrat-citizen and many other relationships. We believe it is commonly the case that one party which is supposed to be a superior decision-maker in his or her own affairs will be able to make decisions on behalf of another that will better help that person attain their own ends than had they been permitted to make their own decisions and this is why the use of coercion by the wiser decision-maker is morally permissible, even laudable.
The point about rationality in free markets (really, property rights) is not that every individual is equally good at making his own decisions for himself as every other person. There is indeed a variation in the aptitude of individuals in making decisions to achieve their own ends. The point is whether the person with supposedly superior decision-making ability can use this as a valid argument to use force to impel a person with supposedly inferior decision-making ability to accept the decisions of another against his or her will. We accept that parents should be able to force children to accept certain decisions made by the parent even if the child expresses extreme hostility to the imposed decision. But there are very good reasons why we permit the use of coercion by parents against their children. I am not aware of any good reason that adult peers should be able to force decisions on one another beyond the conceit of those who have been more successful in life and chalk it up to their supposedly superior decision-making ability.
To answer your question directly, let's look at the case of a mentally retarded person (Let's say Adam). He is not severely retarded so he can drive, and he wants to buy a car. A shrewd car salesman (Bob) has recognized his inferior mental capacity and is selling him a used car for $5000 more than its market value. A bureaucrat (Connor) from the Mental Services Division (purely fictional) finds out what's going on just in time and steps in to prevent the retard from making a bad decision. To Connor's surprise, Adam argues vehemently that he doesn't care if it's too much money, he wants to but this car from Bob at the agreed price. In desperation, Connor proposes to Adam that he himself will sell the exact same make and model for the same price, planning to later return the $5000 he'd saved Adam by purchasing the car from somewhere else at the market price. Adam just won't budge. He won't listen to reason. He doesn't care what Connor says, he is absolutely sold on buying this car at the price Bob stated. At this point, should Connor have a legal power to forcibly intervene and prevent Adam from buying the vehicle, with force if necessary?
If we say yes, then we are creating a whole bunch of unintended problems since the property of retards now becomes disposable by anyone who decides to intervene and assert their superior decision-making ability. The local crime kingpin David realizes that he can pay people to pose as Mental Services Division agents and impose decisions onto retards just going about their ordinary daily business. In a short period of time, David has fleeced hundreds of retards and forced them to buy overpriced things from his own bought-off vendors.
Now, to wrap up one loose end I want to make it clear that my use of a mildly retarded person in the illustration is only to make the case extreme enough to illustrate the point. I do believe that in the case of sufficient retardation, family (sp. parents) should be presumed to have discretionary guardianship of the individual. Basically, think of it as a child who never grew up and moved out. So, these specific individuals would have a coercive power over another "adult" but only those specific individual and for very good reasons. This does not lead to the systemic problems I mentioned above.
In order for the market to lead to an improvement in the state of affairs over time, is a certain level of competence at using means to achieve ends required? The answer is yes and people are necessarily wired to be at least good enough at achieving their own ends given the available means to survive (evolutionary argument). Mises gives other arguments for this point in Human Action. The point is that people only have to be just good enough at getting what they want in order for the market to lead to an improvement in the state of affairs.
To see why, consider a room full of people who are given a random assignment of goodies from a goodie box then left to exchange with one another however they see fit. If the people in the room were in a vegetative state, no exchanges would occur. If they were severely mentally handicapped, few if any exchanges would occur. If they were moderately mentally retarded, exchanges would probably occur but then the distribution after exchanges had occurred might not be an improvement from the distribution before exchanges had occurred - perhaps the mentally retarded individuals are not even fully capable of assessing their own state of satisfaction. We just don't know because something is wrong with their brains. If they were only mildly mentally retarded, though, we should expect to see an improvement in the distribution of goodies as exchanges take place. This means that even if the market were filled with mildly retarded people, there is enough "rationality" in the population for the process of market improvement to occur over time.
Rationality is ultimately about mapping costs and benefits onto decision-makers. When we say that Connor should be empowered to forcibly override Adam's decision, we are saying that we believe that the normal state of affairs where decision-makers receive feedback on the quality of their decisions based on the costs and benefits of those decisions results in Adam consistently making bad decisions. This may very well be true for a certain level of mental handicap or immaturity but it cannot be systemically true without denying that individuals do, in fact, use the available means to achieve their own ends. If it were not true that individuals use the available means to achieve their own ends, we would not be here having this conversation. In other words, the very fact that human beings exist is proof that humans use the available means to achieve their own ends (are rational).
The cartoon version of rationality - homo economicus - is useless. It is not a 'model' of anything and it's not needed to prove the essential insights of economics (supply-demand curves, marginal analysis, and so on). The only thing I can think of that would act like Homo Economicus would be an omniscient deity.