Whose opinion matters?
This question is perhaps more important than any particular question of policy, law or even science that one might consider. For any issue that you consider, you can always find contrary opinions. One person says this. Another person says that. Whose opinion matters, who should be believed?
One solution is to try to separate facts from opinions. But really, this is just another way of answering the question, "whose opinion matters": the person whose opinion is factual, instead of mere opinion.
The fact vs. opinion model works fairly well for most questions of value-free science... that is, questions concerning laws of causality. If you throw an apple up into the air, it will fall back down to the ground. This isn't just my opinion, it's a fact. So, the opinion of anyone who espouses this fact matters, with respect to this fact. The condtion for joining the "People Whose Opinion Matters Club" on the question of gravity is assent to the fact of gravity.
But questions of particular laws and policies are necessarily not value-free. Any value-free answer to a question of law and policy is necessarily not talking about any particular, real law or policy as it exists or would exist if really implemented. This is because people have conflicting preferences regarding actual laws and policies even if they merely have opinions about theories of law and policy.
The criteria for joining the "Whose Opinion Matters Club" in questions of law and policy should be the same as it is for gravity - assent to the value-free facts of the matter. For example, Austrian Business Cycle Theory gives a factual, value-free description of the consequences of low-interest rate policies. Whether you prefer that interest rates be low or high or that business-cycles do or do not occur is beside the point to the value-free causal theory of what happens when interests are low or high, etc.
But your preferences regarding the actual existence of the central bank and its actual decisions - for example, in setting low interest rates - are not irrelevant because the question of actual decisions is never value-free. The question "whose opinion matters" rears its ugly head again.
I think there are general heuristics that people tend to follow in answering this question. For example, people assume that the opinion of someone who has studied a subject longer should matter more than the opinion of someone who has studied a subject less. For example, the opinion of the economist regarding corporate tax should supersede the opinion of the actual owner of a corporation, who has not studied such a tax. Now this heuristic is not completely wrong but in this case it clearly leads to a serious problem: the actual owner of a corporation has a real interest in the corporation which is based on the fact that his property claims are all legitimate. Raising the opinion of the tax academic above the opinion of the owner of the property in question is simply backwards. We've picked the wrong opinion to listen to.
This situation occurs everywhere in society. The opinion of the child psychologist supersedes the opinion of not only both parents but also grandparents and all other interested kin. The basis of this precedence is the technical credentials of the "expert" which - in many cases - is a perfectly wonderful basis for choosing this over that opinion.
So what is the cause of the problem? Why do we frequently end up choosing the wrong opinion to listen to, that is, misidentifying whose opinion matters? I believe that a major contributor to this persistent mistake is the failure to look at more than just technical credentials. Who benefits? Who is hurt? Whose property was it to begin with?
Let's say I spent my life studying the money supply and then concluded that only a genius who has spent his life studying the money supply and with exactly and only my opinions and credentials is qualified to manage the money supply. Would that be a proper basis for everyone to turn over management of the money supply to me? There's an obvious conflict-of-interest in such an opinion: I benefit from it! Of course I would say that all money production should be managed by me! My technical credentials are irrelevant to the question of whether my opinion should matter on the question of whether I should be permitted to manage the money supply because there is a manifest conflict-of-interest in my opinion on such a question.
Democracy is a metaphor for a larger shift in thinking... everyone has a vote. Everyone has a say. But the fact of the matter is that it is just as important whose opinion is excluded as it is whose opinion is counted. The geocentrist's opinion is rightly excluded from the science of astronomy. The Keynesian's opinion is rightly excluded from the science of economics. But these are questions of value-free science.
When it comes to questions of value, questions where people's chosen preferences are in conflict or where actual property is at stake, the opinions of those who do not stand to benefit or lose from the matter and those whose property is not at stake should be excluded from consideration. This is because there is a conflict-of-interest inherent in expressing an opinion on a matter which does not (yet) affect you - namely, you may be able to turn the outcome of the dispute in such a way that it does benefit you.
Let's say Alice steals Bob's television. That is between Alice and Bob. But now let's say Charlie steps in to "settle" the matter by seizing the television from Alice, liquidating it, and giving half of the proceeds to Bob, keeping the rest as his "fee". Charlie has enriched himself by interjecting himself into a dispute that did not concern him. Charlie's opinion on the Alice-versus-Bob dispute is irrelevant because there is an inherent conflict-of-interest in Charlie's expression of his opinion. Of course Charlie thinks he should settle Alice and Bob's dispute because he stands to benefit in the process.
There is a principle in historical scholarship called adversarial testimony or adversial witness (also used in law), which basically says that if someone says something bad about their enemy or something good about themselves, it's probably exaggerated or simply false. But if someone says something good about their enemy or something bad about themselves, then that's more likely to be true - maybe even an understatement. I only mention the principle to bring out the crucial importance of real interests and social relationships in determining the relevance of expressed opinions. Technical credentials and expert consensus are irrelevant if there is a conflict-of-interest.
We need to spend some more time thinking about whose opinion matters and why. Not everyone's opinion matters to everything (democratic science). The opinions of those who stand to benefit from the very opinion in question should also be excluded from consideration (cui bono). The opinions of those who have nothing to lose either way on the outcome of a question of law or policy should be excluded from consideration. In part, modern democracy has flooded the public policy debate with opinions that should be excluded not because they are stupid or uninformed but because they are either motivated by self-interest or they have nothing to lose and are, therefore, unaccountable to the outcome.
Clayton -
I see that thread has sent you on a bout of tangential thinking.
LOL - seriously, no, this subject has been building in my head for a few days now. That's why I kept talking about it in that and other threads.
Clayton: Whose opinion matters? This question is perhaps more important than any particular question of policy, law or even science that one might consider. For any issue that you consider, you can always find contrary opinions. One person says this. Another person says that. Whose opinion matters, who should be believed? One solution is to try to separate facts from opinions. But really, this is just another way of answering the question, "whose opinion matters": the person whose opinion is factual, instead of mere opinion. The fact vs. opinion model works fairly well for most questions of value-free science... that is, questions concerning laws of causality. If you throw an apple up into the air, it will fall back down to the ground. This isn't just my opinion, it's a fact. So, the opinion of anyone who espouses this fact matters, with respect to this fact. The condtion for joining the "People Whose Opinion Matters Club" on the question of gravity is assent to the fact of gravity. But questions of particular laws and policies are necessarily not value-free. Any value-free answer to a question of law and policy is necessarily not talking about any particular, real law or policy as it exists or would exist if really implemented. This is because people have conflicting preferences regarding actual laws and policies even if they merely have opinions about theories of law and policy. The criteria for joining the "Whose Opinion Matters Club" in questions of law and policy should be the same as it is for gravity - assent to the value-free facts of the matter. For example, Austrian Business Cycle Theory gives a factual, value-free description of the consequences of low-interest rate policies. Whether you prefer that interest rates be low or high or that business-cycles do or do not occur is beside the point to the value-free causal theory of what happens when interests are low or high, etc. But your preferences regarding the actual existence of the central bank and its actual decisions - for example, in setting low interest rates - are not irrelevant because the question of actual decisions is never value-free. The question "whose opinion matters" rears its ugly head again. I think there are general heuristics that people tend to follow in answering this question. For example, people assume that the opinion of someone who has studied a subject longer should matter more than the opinion of someone who has studied a subject less. For example, the opinion of the economist regarding corporate tax should supersede the opinion of the actual owner of a corporation, who has not studied such a tax. Now this heuristic is not completely wrong but in this case it clearly leads to a serious problem: the actual owner of a corporation has a real interest in the corporation which is based on the fact that his property claims are all legitimate. Raising the opinion of the tax academic above the opinion of the owner of the property in question is simply backwards. We've picked the wrong opinion to listen to. This situation occurs everywhere in society. The opinion of the child psychologist supersedes the opinion of not only both parents but also grandparents and all other interested kin. The basis of this precedence is the technical credentials of the "expert" which - in many cases - is a perfectly wonderful basis for choosing this over that opinion. So what is the cause of the problem? Why do we frequently end up choosing the wrong opinion to listen to, that is, misidentifying whose opinion matters? I believe that a major contributor to this persistent mistake is the failure to look at more than just technical credentials. Who benefits? Who is hurt? Whose property was it to begin with? Let's say I spent my life studying the money supply and then concluded that only a genius who has spent his life studying the money supply and with exactly and only my opinions and credentials is qualified to manage the money supply. Would that be a proper basis for everyone to turn over management of the money supply to me? There's an obvious conflict-of-interest in such an opinion: I benefit from it! Of course I would say that all money production should be managed by me! My technical credentials are irrelevant to the question of whether my opinion should matter on the question of whether I should be permitted to manage the money supply because there is a manifest conflict-of-interest in my opinion on such a question. Democracy is a metaphor for a larger shift in thinking... everyone has a vote. Everyone has a say. But the fact of the matter is that it is just as important whose opinion is excluded as it is whose opinion is counted. The geocentrist's opinion is rightly excluded from the science of astronomy. The Keynesian's opinion is rightly excluded from the science of economics. But these are questions of value-free science. When it comes to questions of value, questions where people's chosen preferences are in conflict or where actual property is at stake, the opinions of those who do not stand to benefit or lose from the matter and those whose property is not at stake should be excluded from consideration. This is because there is a conflict-of-interest inherent in expressing an opinion on a matter which does not (yet) affect you - namely, you may be able to turn the outcome of the dispute in such a way that it does benefit you. Let's say Alice steals Bob's television. That is between Alice and Bob. But now let's say Charlie steps in to "settle" the matter by seizing the television from Alice, liquidating it, and giving half of the proceeds to Bob, keeping the rest as his "fee". Charlie has enriched himself by interjecting himself into a dispute that did not concern him. Charlie's opinion on the Alice-versus-Bob dispute is irrelevant because there is an inherent conflict-of-interest in Charlie's expression of his opinion. Of course Charlie thinks he should settle Alice and Bob's dispute because he stands to benefit in the process. There is a principle in historical scholarship called adversarial testimony or adversial witness (also used in law), which basically says that if someone says something bad about their enemy or something good about themselves, it's probably exaggerated or simply false. But if someone says something good about their enemy or something bad about themselves, then that's more likely to be true - maybe even an understatement. I only mention the principle to bring out the crucial importance of real interests and social relationships in determining the relevance of expressed opinions. Technical credentials and expert consensus are irrelevant if there is a conflict-of-interest. We need to spend some more time thinking about whose opinion matters and why. Not everyone's opinion matters to everything (democratic science). The opinions of those who stand to benefit from the very opinion in question should also be excluded from consideration (cui bono). The opinions of those who have nothing to lose either way on the outcome of a question of law or policy should be excluded from consideration. In part, modern democracy has flooded the public policy debate with opinions that should be excluded not because they are stupid or uninformed but because they are either motivated by self-interest or they have nothing to lose and are, therefore, unaccountable to the outcome. Clayton -
Thinking of Aristotle's On Rhetoric, Ethos, Pathos and Logos are the three elements of rhetoric that he maintained each speech or every speaker would need to sufficiently convince his audience to accept his argument.
Ethos: credibility
Pathos: Emotion
Logos: Logic
If you ask me, and I think Aristotle believed this too, Logos (logic) should be the most important and only necessary thing. Unfortunately, people use ad hominem attacks all the time. For instance...
Anything our enemies say is wrong.
Our enemy says that 5+8=13.
Therefore, 5+8 is not 13.
This syllogism shows how Ethos (credibility) and Pathos (emotion) are truly pointless when it comes to Epistemology (seeking the knowledge or truth of a matter). Perhaps the only exception would be if one is performing some kind of qualitative research where he's concerned with how people feel at any given time, but even then it would end up being quantified to some degree, such as "X people felt this way" or "X people found Y offensive," which precludes Ethos and Pathos from having a sufficient substratum to hold an argument.
Thus, my answer is that it does not matter who says what; only that they are stating a fact whilst saying it. Savvy?
clayton:The opinions of those who stand to benefit from the very opinion in question should also be excluded from consideration (cui bono). The opinions of those who have nothing to lose either way on the outcome of a question of law or policy should be excluded from consideration.
So then who's left?
Also how do you determine whether or not someone stands to lose either way? Are we talking immediately? Over time? Before it's happened?
Take for instance the individual mandate. Should I have no say on it until I've actually had to deal with it personally?
Take for instance the individual mandate.
Something like the individual mandate is built upon layers and layers of legal accretions, simply attacking this would have little practical use or impact on the systemic legal problems built into the present social order. It's hardly consistent to object to the individual mandate while remaining silent on or even supporting income and payroll taxes (e.g. the current Republic platform).
The issues I'm tackling are so foundational that to address them would require looking into the holiest of holies, the most sacrosanct building-block of our entire society: the law monopoly. I don't think the general public is even capable of thinking about a non-monopoly legal system at this point in time. So, the kinds of things I'm talking about are long-range theory. A few centuries from now, people may quote Hans Hoppe like we quote John Locke and say "wow, that guy really hit it on the nose... how was he so foresighted and how come he was the only one who saw this??"
On the more practical side of things, see my First Church of Mises thread. In the State, I think that we're dealing with forces of nature that are so powerful that they give an appearance of unalterable permanence when, in fact, they are on the verge of collapse. The State has its origins in the human brain, that much is clear.
The human brain has created the State as the result of its maladaptation to the present environment which is orders of mangitude different from what the brain is hardwired to expect. The productive capacity of the individual is immensely greater. Basic needs are immensely less expensive to meet. We come out of the womb expecting life to be very hard in terms of basic needs and very easy in terms of social structure. The facts are precisely the opposite... meeting basic needs is almost trivial and the social structure is incomprehensibly large and complex.
Our brains are hardwired for a world with no televisions. internet or jet aircraft and a population of not more than a few dozen thousand in our local area. The intuitive theory of economics in human brains is almost exactly backwards of what is needed for a high-population, high-productivity environment. Which is why humans are so consistently biased towards economic fallacies, such as the just price fallacy. Central planning of a tribe or clan will not cause a business cycle but central-planning of entire nations will and does.
This is why when States enact economically suicidal polices (such as tariffs or embargoes), they are cheered by the citizenry. When States inflate away the value of the currency, people don't notice because the brain is wired to expect things to be "about the same" over time. We can't actually handle how much the world has changed in terms of productive capacity in even just the last 30 years, let alone the last 300. People literally do not believe how valuable their labor actually is. I believe the Utopian world described by the Venus Project is very much like what our world would be like if only the human brain was capable of accepting just how productive the individual is. Instead, we dramatically underestimate the true value of our labor - the relative privation imposed by taxes and inflation do not raise any red flags because - while things are not getting as dramatically better as they would be in the absence of such inflation and taxation - things keep getting a little better over time which, in and of itself, is difficult enough for our stone age brains to process.
As this structure begins to collapse, new "memetic structures" need to be discovered that are capable of harnessing the power of memes - self-replicating (and ultimately self-funding) ideas - in order to provide meaningful alternatives to the present, unsustainable, exploitative social order. The Seasteading Institute is thinking along these lines but I don't think they have the right solution. We need more ideas. I think an international pro-secession political action institute (LvMI is damn close to this) could be one such solution.
I think the answer is simple: start early.
If you want to program people to be more interested in liberty or whatever, just beat it into their heads from the time they're born.
fact vs opionon is a false dichotomy
Any time there is a "dichotomy" or intellectual "conflict". it is merely a gramatical error, no more than a third grade spelling mistake on obvious reality and rules
There are no "opinions" - merely facts that assert themselves - unique bits in a continual process, not "fixed ideas" - all "truth" does is affirm relevant social human actions
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
all "truth" does is affirm relevant social human actions
Like geometry, right?
There are no "opinions" - merely facts that assert themselves
Duh?!! Ask an astronomer!
We need more ideas. I think an international pro-secession political action institute (LvMI is damn close to this) could be one such solution.
We need to infiltrate Masonic lodges, work our ways to the top and then direct disorder in place of order.
Fnord fnord! Shhhhhhh, Aristophanes. Fnord fnord!
A fact is an opinion that is not in dispute.
The one that has not been rebutted.
My opinion matters, and yours doesn't, according to me.
-Max Stirner (as he would say)
Opinions are just preferences.
If people want higher standard of living, no matter what their preferences are, then decisions that are against division of labor are harmful. This is because more division of labour is invariant to preferences in being more productive relative less division of labor. Every preference is easier satisfied by more division of labor.
-Mises
Now, if people actually want a lower standard of living... then there is nothing you can do except whip out weapons and...
Basically, if people want to improve their lives in some way, you appeal to their interests, but if they are bandits because they get satisfaction from theft and murder, the acts themselves being part of their preferences, then only fighting can deal with that issue. Because division of labor can never satisfy people who like violence and theft for their own sake, which is quite a few people. Some people simply like politics, and market economics has no place for them, because it is the process that gives them pleasure, not the result.
-Lord North, Discourse on the Poor, considering violent criminals