There is a pervasive sentiment among statists that a major justification, or rather, the necessity, for regulation and government intervention is that people--and the argument inevitably turns to the impoverished or disadvantaged--are irrational beasts and need guidance.
Therefore, they say, the free market is nothing more than a means for the wealthy to manipulate and herd the mindless animals as they please.
Obviously, the free market exploitation aspect of their argument is easy to refute, but I find it a bit harder to explain why all individuals possess a form of "rationality". After all, it's easy to see that there are many ignorant or mindless people in this world, so the "seen" aspect is patently obvious.
I know this is a trite and fundamental issue, that rationality is based upon subjectively ordered preferences, but what else would you say about the subject of human rationality to explain it to the type of person who, and I quote, "like[s] eminent domain"?
As a general rule, I would say that the more a person has been exposed to higher education, the more likely she is to behave irrationally and manifest all kinds of group think herd behavior.
Of course people that are not educated get some sort of mass indoctrination from TV, but I don't think it is as intense.
College educated people are usually mind numb dogma repeating zombies, and things get worse in graduate school.
The smartest people I know don't have degrees.
Here's a great confrontation of that notion:
For a more detailed argument, we discussed this starting here. But here's some of the relevant quotes from Mises:
"Human action is necessarily always rational. The term 'rational action' is therefore pleonastic and must be rejected as such. When applied to the ultimate ends of action, the terms rational and irrational are inappropriate and meaningless. The ultimate end of action is always the satisfaction of some desires of the acting man."
"Action is, by definition, always rational."
@ToxicAssets: Yep, I'd agree with that. I feel like I have to do double the work for every class just to slog through the misinformation. I'm in Constitutional Law right now...and Jesus it is taxing.
@JJ, thanks, you're the man.
Oh, sorry, that was politically incorrect. What I meant to say is, you're the person.
I'll look at all of that (and eventually I need to read Human Action) but how do you think we've arrived at the point where "rationality" is considered a tool by which the elite and their subjugated masses can pass judgment and initiate action against those in unfortunate situations? I'm sorry if that didn't make sense, I'm in a hurry.
Actually "group think herd behavior" starts at kindergarten:
Grammar school, at least here in the U.S. seems to center around conformity and "following the rules" in order to manufacture a docile and obedient class of blue collar workers. You sit down in your assigned chair, raise your hand to speak, walk single file without talking etc.
http://www.researchgate.net/post/Democracy_and_Education
There is the subtle, but ever-present socialist indoctrination that is gradually turning our kids into passive, submissive, obedient government serfs. From the time a child enters primary school they are programmed to 'group think'.
http://www.knowthelies.com/node/7284
It is absurd and anti-life to be part of a system that compels you to sit in confinement with people of exactly the same age and social class. That system effectively cuts you off from the immense diversity of life and the synergy of variety; indeed, it cuts you off from your own past and future, sealing you in a continuous present much in the same way television does.
Dumbing Us Down by John Taylor Gatto
Willy Truth:how do you think we've arrived at the point where "rationality" is considered a tool by which the elite and their subjugated masses can pass judgment and initiate action against those in unfortunate situations?
Mises wrote on this in several places, but I think that might be best answered by Sowell in his trilogy:
A Conflict of Visions
The Vision of the Anointed
The Quest for Cosmic Justice
And separate from the trilogy, but also in discussion of the subject, Intellectuals and Society.
Obviously I recommend the books, but you can definitely get a lot out of Sowell's interviews...
Thomas Sowell: Uncommon Knowledge
from: Guides and Knowledge for your Intellectual Journey
I think the Mises quotes are not relevant here. The way I see the OP's question, it's this:
Many people have won Darwin awards who would rather not have gained that prize.
Also, many people are retarded, literally, or have very very low intelligence.
In other words, there are plenty of folk incompetent to find a means that will give them the ends they chose for themselves.
Don't these people need a wise loving leader to guide them through the pitfalls of life?
All Mises wrote was that these tragic figures do their best, as they see it. But he did not discuss the question of do they need help to acheive their own ends, and should we give it to them?
It's a moral question. But let's agree with the warm hearted folks who think we should help the helpless. Now the question becomes who can we trust to help the helpless, as opposed to helping themselves at the expense of the helpless?
Historically, the people who usually help someone most are his family, if he is lucky enough to be born into a good one. Volunteers are sometimes good helpers, including charities and spiritual organizations [although they too have thier pedophiles and so forth]. But at least some of them actually helped the unfortunate. Mother Teresa seems to be a case in point.
But there are two types that seems totally unqualified to help anyone, the politician and the govt bureaucrat. If we consider that 90% of the money spent on welfare goes to the govt workers involved, and 10% to poor people, that should give us pause. If we look at the state of govt endeavors in any field, such as the post office, FEMA, Homeland Security, the TSA, the military, and the lawmakers, we see mind boggling incompetence and casual cruelty at every level. Lewrockwell.com makes its living documenting as much as they can of this, which is a drop in the bucket of the totality.
Where would you rather raise your child, at home, or in a govt foster home? When you grow old, where would you rather spend your last days, with family or in a govt nursing home?
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
two points (and you figured the 1st one out)
1) economically speaking, yes humans (all of them) act "rationally" in an AE model
2) To get ultra subjective on you: "people" / "they" say no such thing. These arguments can only be taken one at a time, by an actual subject actually making a statement - at which point it must be taken at face value for what is said. You can't act as a "meta-proxy" for such arguments or points of view, it just can't work. I think this causes a lot of confusion when thinking about the issues at hand.
I think if you have this type of outlook in your mind, you'll see how such a predisposition is actually going to be more tailored to an AE approach, than other approaches anyway.
"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
Al_Gore the Idiot:Actually "group think herd behavior" starts at kindergarten:
Rothbard's Education: Free and Compulsory goes into this nicely. And of course there's a ton on LRC.
I recently read a great piece which I can't seem to find at the moment. I'm not sure where it was, but it was decent length, and presented the case that the purpose of public schooling was never education, but rather state obedience. There were a handful of historical quotes from influential officials and people who were key role players in the founding of public education.
The piece basically showed how they openly admitted what the goal was behind it. One of the quotes was from a founder of the public school system to some degree in the US I believe, but not Horace Mann.
This could have been on EPJ or LRC, but for some reason I don't think so. Perhaps it may have been linked from there. Does anyone recognize it?
"John Taylor Gatto" is what to type into your search engine.
I see all apparent irrationality as a reflection of how a person was mistreated. It's not actual irrationality, just a modified set of goals for their rationality to operate on. Those who believe that they know what's best for others and want to impose it are simply displaying the effects of their own mistreatment. I see none of it as "free-floating" poor decisions; it's all an inevitable consequence of mistreatment. For people just being born, let's not expose them to mistreatment in the first place. For those who've already endured it, let's first refrain from further mistreatment (use of force against them, treatment that undermines their autonomy), and then make available environments where they can recover from the mistreatment. In places where the state is imposed on people, these will be difficult to achieve.
Smiling Dave:"John Taylor Gatto" is what to type into your search engine.
A) I'm familiar with him. He's written quite a lot though.
B) About 304,000 results
C) I don't think it was him.
D) No offense, but that is one of the most useless answers I've ever gotten.
The JohnTaylor Gatto quote is directly from the book, Dumbing Us Down, I'm reading. I highly recommend this book, although there are a few things here and there I can't agree with.
So, let me get this straight. People are irrational beasts.
In order to save or protect them from themselves, they need other irrational beasts to intervene.
Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Thanks, statists!
Krpike's Wittgenstein discusses the breadth of stupidity in his skeptical argument against basic rule following.
Lewis Carroll also goes over what it means to "know" and "understand" things in this. (This is pretty funny. The tortoise leads Achilles the athlete down the rabbit hole so to speak.)
Al_Gore the Idiot: As a general rule, I would say that the more a person has been exposed to higher education, the more likely she is to behave irrationally and manifest all kinds of group think herd behavior. Actually "group think herd behavior" starts at kindergarten: Grammar school, at least here in the U.S. seems to center around conformity and "following the rules" in order to manufacture a docile and obedient class of blue collar workers. You sit down in your assigned chair, raise your hand to speak, walk single file without talking etc. http://www.researchgate.net/post/Democracy_and_Education There is the subtle, but ever-present socialist indoctrination that is gradually turning our kids into passive, submissive, obedient government serfs. From the time a child enters primary school they are programmed to 'group think'. http://www.knowthelies.com/node/7284 It is absurd and anti-life to be part of a system that compels you to sit in confinement with people of exactly the same age and social class. That system effectively cuts you off from the immense diversity of life and the synergy of variety; indeed, it cuts you off from your own past and future, sealing you in a continuous present much in the same way television does. Dumbing Us Down by John Taylor Gatto
Thanks for the book recommendation, I'll definitely check that out. I've already downloaded the audiobook and it's in the playlist for the gym.
Anyway, I'm aware that indoctrination begins early in elementary school and that's really obnoxious.
I'm no specialist in children psychology and these guys have definitely many sinister ways to program their dogmas in their little defenseless brains, that's for sure. Little kids were main targets of propaganda in all totalitarian regimes.
But there's something rebellious about some kids too.
Some kids won't simply put up with the whole indoctrination thing.
They may not be completely aware of what's going on (and by the way, who is?), but they know there's something disgusting when they look at the losers and scumbags they have as teachers and the whole subservient attitude that the institution try to instill.
Of course, these are the kids that refuse to be lemmings are the kids that get the bad grades and are considered to be learning disabled, and are diverted to the low impact jobs, with a small percentage escaping this fate and doing something really awesome.
The ones that do get the good grades are usually the most inclined to obey and swallow all the bullshit. Those are the ones that get to the best universities, where they can be really molded into police state worshipers.
to op?
If you take a look at poorer countries without a lot of government safety nets, majority of people still manage to live a reasonable standard of living, even people with very limited resources. There are some homeless people that have actually decided to be homeless though, while other homeless people that are just in a situation where they do not have a place to live, due to specific circumstances, ie they used to have a home. In countries with less government safety nets there tends to be more informal settlements. While in the countries with larger welfare states, they have higher restrictions on informal settlements. The end of the welfare state, I think might have to coincide with an end to restrictions on informal settlements that are enforced by the government to prevent a situation where people become improverished. There is no evidence that the majority of people depend on socialised services to the extent that they would not be able to function without it, was that even your argument?
ToxicAssets, there is a free pdf copy of that book somewhere on the web.
All people (stupid or otherwise) use means to pursue ends - they engage in rational action (better to just call this action). Stupid people don't lack ends, nor are their ends "wrong" (ends are subjective), they only lack the correct means, which is why they fail to achieve their ends. This is so clear in politics. I'm of the opinion that ultimately the vast majority of the population has the same (broadly defined) ends. They basically want to be left alone, to do as they please, with as much material wealth as possible - and they don't want to hurt anyone else. They have the same ends as libertarians do. Trouble is, they've chosen the wrong means - they support policies which they believe advance their goals (e.g. the welfare-state), but which in fact do not. The same in every other field of endeavor. For example, "stupid" investor does not lack the desire to increase his wealth, he makes the wrong decisions about how to go about doing that; a "stupid" consumer does not lack the desire to relieve himself of some felt uneasiness, he's just mistaken about which product he should buy to achieve that goal. In general though, I'm of the opinion people are knowledgeable enough about means to navigate their own lives just fine - the problem is that they attempt to manage the lives of others (via politics), and fail abysmally in that pursuit.