If libertarians believe in demonstrated preference, then what about countries that decide to adopt socialism instead of voting for capitalism?
If libertarians believe that freedom maximizes utility "ex ante", e.g. choosing between a Ford and a Toyote, then what if the government restricts the choice, e.g. bans Toyote and instead the choice is between Ford and Chevrolet? Would it lower utility? Is there something inherent in man that necessarily compells him to choose Toyote?
Man's freedom is always restricted. You can't buy a limo for example, or a magic flying car. Children have to obey their parents. If we teach people to obey, there is no utility loss in fascism - and much benefit.
Nutty as squirrel shit.
You're banning mutually beneficial trade between Toyota and its customers, of course it lowers utility. The arrival of Chevrolet doesn't change that.
Freedom has nothing to do with magic flying cars. Nobody here is talking about "freedom" from scarcity.
You're banning mutually beneficial trade between Toyota and its customers, of course it lowers utility.
Reality bans beneficial trade between The Flying Car company and its customers. But people are happy with their trade because they accept reality - you just need to get people to worship some authority and there is no utility loss.
1. Countries cannot choose
2. People can indeed reduce their own utility and in some cases forcing individuals to do something would increase their utility. It certainly does not follow that fascism will increase utility, and it definitely doesn't follow that "If we teach people to obey, there is no utility loss in fascism". Could you give me any example of why this would be the case, and if it is then why we should do this? What philisophical/moral basis do you have for arguing this?
1. Countries = people voting.
2. So you reject Rothbard's reconstruction of utility economics. I'll give you an example: forcing overweight people into concentration camps to lose weight and banning heroin.
Troll: Reality bans
Reality bans
Stopped reading there.
"Countries = people voting."
Then yes, many vote against their own self-interest, however a big point that Austrians make is that many individuals are a lot more likely to know what is best for them in their own lives than others in their lives.
"So you reject Rothbard's reconstruction of utility economics."
I think that nearly every argument Rothbard made in Power and Market is extremely insightful and hits right at the heart of the matter, nonetheless I disagree with his thesis that it is impossible that government could ever improve utility, but he is perfectly right to believe that it will fail in doing so in any particular instance.
"forcing overweight people into concentration camps to lose weight"
Such programs usually aren't that successful and a national policy that matched this would most likely cause a great deal of anguish and further body-image problems. Forcing them into "concentration camps"... Seriously? Does this sound like those in the fat "concentration camps" would be having a good time, miss out on things they enjoy from their normal lives, and people around them see decreases in living standards as all goods generated by these obese individuals is lost.
"banning heroin."
This is an awful example. Anti-drug policies cause drug wars, mass murders, cause consumers to spend even more money on the drug, and ultimately don't stop the vast majority of individuals who would be taking such a drug from taking it. Billions of dollars have been poured into this thing and it hasn't stopped anything, just squandered resources and killed more than would have died anyway. I've been personally affected by this stuff, I understand the horror of drugs, and it would be nice if we waved a magic wand and caused people to obey, yet this is not the case.
Both of your proposed laws would just cause anguish and suffering, not increase utility.
That's both true and false.
If one examines utility theory, one is faced with a choice: either agree with the deconstruction I have presented or conclude that the raison d’etre of the masses is formless consumption.
I think we'd be able to get rid of all the drugs on the street if we hired more undercover "buyers" - and I mean unleashing a large portion of the population on undercover missions.
1. Countries cannot choose.
Indeed, because they are fictions. Their supposed choices are merely only some people of the country choosing something for everyone (and making the choice largely because it obligates others to go along with it).
*most people
Anyways, I concede the point about concentration camps.
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
It's very difficult to trace the path from ex ante to ex post in the sphere of political action. The average Joe is not an expert on politics, economics, etc. so is no in position to judge whether or not a politician will benefit him or not. On the other hand he is unique suited to ascertain whether or not a consumer good satisfies the need he had for it. If it's crummy he knows instantly it's crummy.
... just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own - Albert Jay Nock
While a majority of individuals can vote to ban the importation of automobiles from foreign countries, it cannot be said that a country "voted" or "chose" to ban said automobiles.
Actually, I believe that Rothbard acknowledged that you can say this if you clarify your terms. The fact that the majority of a given population choose to adopt socialism pokes a big hole in the reconstruction of utility economics.