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.
Sure, and the majority of individuals comprising various countries may demonstrate a gain in utility from adopting national socialism, where foreign imports are heavily discouraged through prohibitively high tariffs. But the < or = 50% - 1 that did not vote to adopt national socialism may not see a gain in utility from having fewer choices. So it can, AGAIN, only be said that a countries sees gains in utility from the adoption of national socialism if it is assumed that the individual is irrelevant and essentially nonexistent. That is, if you ignore that less than or equal to fifty percent of the population less one.
Also of note is that the utility gain enjoyed by the greater than or equal to fifty percent plus one is a sort of economical utility, like a gain in fuel efficiency, a decrease in prices that allows for more goods to be purchased, or longer lasting vehicles. Mercantilism does not lead to anything like this. In fact, it leads to the opposite. The utility gain can only be psychic. In other words, the majority gets a psychological benefit from knowing that consumers in general suffer from less choices, higher prices, lower quality, etc, while a few sees gains (those in the protected industry).
You have said nothing new or profound, nor do you have a "point" about utility theory. You have just demonstrated the implicit fact that collectivist theory holds up when it is assumed that nations act and individuals do not. As you might phrase it, "reality bans" collectivist theory except as is explained by Austrians and libertarians, and so does logic.
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.
Why are people responding to this thread like it is serious? Are you trying to win a magic flying car
Why don't you move to North Korea?
Not enough market. I'm considering moving to Singapore.
Banning something must lead to a decrease in utility (unless you ban something that doesn't exist or no one would choose to purchase, like small pox pancakes) because the individuals who would have purchased that item must now choose their second choice, thus decreasing their utility. Socialism leads to terrible results, like economic chaos, falling standards of living, the erradication of personal liberty and the gross dysfunction of society so it's likely that everyone except the bureaucrats (and probably only the top bureaucrats at that) would suffer extreme losses in utility.
But the voters still choose it. That's my point. Most people are too ignorant to make their own decisions.
So are you saying only 49 percent of the population is negatively impacted by socialism?
Buzz Killington:What the hell does "citizens" mean if you can't look at what people vote for?
The majority of citizens in virtually every country are not voters in the political system. Judging voters as if they represent the actual opinions of all citizens is nonsense. No one would confuse the votes of Representatives and Senators with being the opinion of the people either.
No, that is not what I'm saying. To be clear, I can't judge whether someone enjoys their present situation over a previous situation. I can say that, economically, the majority of people would be worse off, in the sense that there will be a smaller supply of goods to go around, the goods that are available will be more expensive and of reduced quality, and unemployment will be more widespread, and so will higher taxation. Who knows, maybe the majority feels a psychic gain from knowing that they suffer like everyone else.