Political Theory

Re: Human Nature

Geoffrey Allan Plauché — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:42:56 GMT

It was probably an attempt to ward off psychologism and polylogism.

Roderick has an interesting article that discusses how Mises's Kantian impositionism fails to do so.

"Anti-Psychologism in Economics: Wittgenstein and Mises"

Re: Human Nature

Donny with an A — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:16:27 GMT

Perhaps it was a response to people who were using the term "irrational" to critique ends, rather than means?

Re: Human Nature

Inquisitor — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:54:08 GMT

I would tend to agree with Danny. It renders the term tautological. I wonder why Mises chose to use it in that way - perhaps to distinguish the Austrian approach from neoclassical 'homo oeconomicus'?

Re: Human Nature

Donny with an A — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:47:21 GMT

Just to throw in a thought on an earlier point, I don't think I like Mises' definition of rationality. If all active choices are rational, then it seems like we destroy any significance the word might have. It becomes an empty, almost redundant term. That's not to say that I disagree with the underlying point that Mises is making, but I think that definining rationality as something more like "responding properly to reason" allows us to call someone "irrational" if they respond "improperly" to reason, which seems like a useful distinction that Mises' definition doesn't allow us to make.

It's sort of like how "voluntary" loses a significant part of its meaning when you say that "all actions are voluntary," even though under some definitions of the word, that would be true.

Re: Human Nature

ViennaSausage — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:55:18 GMT

I was not certain whether or no there was consensus on a libertarian view of human nature, but it looks like the consensus is there is no consensus, which is an adequate answer for me.

Re: Human Nature

Geoffrey Allan Plauché — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:34:49 GMT

There isn't any one libertarian view of human nature, although there might be some commonalities. My own view is that of Aristotelian libertarianism, which you can learn more about by reading the writings of the following thinkers: Henry Veatch, Roderick Long, Fred D. Miller, Jr., Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl, Chris Sciabarra, Ayn Rand, and some others.

Re: Human Nature

Dimitri — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:56:49 GMT

Excuse me for interfering, but we sometimes overcomplicate or even mystify things which are complicated by itself (contradiction…). What can we say of human nature? Some things it seems are quite obvious. We are egoists in the sense that we have our desires, which we want to satisfy and there is nothing to blame in that. We also need cooperation of other people without which we can do very little. These people are even elements of our plans and objects of our desires. Considering that we need maximum freedom for ourselves. Another thing is that for successful realization of our plans we need maximum predictability of our partners. So walking in the street for instance or going shopping we expect of our potential partners (drivers, pedestrians, salesmen…) to behave according to certain rules… And we have mechanisms of keeping them in these frames: encouragement (smiling…) and punishment (refusing to cooperate, frowning, imposing fines, imprisoning…). Are these two main impulses enough to explain all our behaviour as social beings? I think yes, in the main. To function successfully as social beings we need reputation of good partners, and to acquire such reputation we are ready to do many things… These two impulses are mainly opposite so we can explain by them anything we do. One more thing of the similar importance regulates our behaviour. It’s property, which has direct relation to our need in predictability of the world. The things that belong to us are predictable. They will not let us down in realization of our plans. Of the same origin is also our desire of controlling things (to be sure that they will fulfill their functions in due time and in due place), which if it concerns people we can do by making them love us or dread us (technically these are just different forms of control)… Then we must say several words of love and hate. The guiding thing for us in that I think must be the circumstance that there is a strange coincidence between what we love and what is conducive (what we consider somehow as such and what we explain, or try at least to do so then rationally) to our plans and vice versa – we hate what threatens them etc. etc. But it will take us too far…

Re: Human Nature

macsnafu — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:23:23 GMT

Nathyn:

That's about it. Both of those are true, but incomplete. People are often irrational and egoism is the root of this. Furthermore, at the heart of human nature is Buddha-nature. Real human nature is Buddha-nature clouded by ego. The "human nature" which leads people to buy more of a good when the price goes down and less of a good when the price goes down is superficial and just as reflective of stupidity as rationality.

"Buddha-nature"? That certainly sounds debatable.

"...which leads people to buy more of a good when the price goes down and less of a good when the price goes down..."

I'll be charitable and assume that's a typo, that you meant "less of a good when the price goes UP..." This has already been answered from the Austrian perspective, but even from a more mainstream economic perspective, you're missing the point. All other things being equal, then yes, people will tend to buy more of a good when the price goes down and less when the price goes up. In real life, multiple variables are involved, and changing variables tend to have the effect of causing changes to other variables. It's difficult, no, it's impossible to get any grasp of the big picture, all those variables interacting, without a better understanding of how each individual variable works. "All other things being equal" is a way of performing a thought experiment and isolating a single variable so that it can be better understood, since controlled economic experiments are nearly impossible to conduct in real life.

An "evenly rotating economy" is a similar mental construct. It's not intended to explain economic reality, but to isolate individual variables so they can be understood. Once an understanding of the individual variables exist, then you can try to put them all together and get a better, holistic picture of economic reality.

Re: Human Nature

Brainpolice — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:06:36 GMT

Brainpolice, you're arguing that action is essentially rational if the agent chooses the means which in his/her subjective estimation will attain the end desired, right? If so I think we're on the same page.

Yes, that's the gist of it. It doesn't mean that their choice of means is necessarily correct, or that their desired ends are necessarily good, in objective reality. It's just a description of the process of choosing.

As for Hobbes, his social contract notion suffers from a problem in that he posits that no one in the 'state of nature' would rely on promises made by others. What is one to make of his social contract then? How is it to be enforced, or relied upon? This is a major blow to his theory (one I covered last term in my ethics classes.)

Very true. Hobbe's own arguements ironically work against him, since he seems to apply totally different rules of human behavior when it comes to the "post-anarchic" society. But as the links I posted earlier get into, there is no such thing as an escape from the "natural" world in the first place.

Re: Human Nature

Inquisitor — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:11:28 GMT

Brainpolice, you're arguing that action is essentially rational if the agent chooses the means which in his/her subjective estimation will attain the end desired, right? If so I think we're on the same page.

You're correct on Mises - from what I could infer, he is a compatibilist of sorts. He also argues, though, that from the actor's point of view choice is (ironically) inescapable. We always choose from our perspective. He concedes though that from a perfect being's POV, we might be completely determined.

As for Hobbes, his social contract notion suffers from a problem in that he posits that no one in the 'state of nature' would rely on promises made by others. What is one to make of his social contract then? How is it to be enforced, or relied upon? This is a major blow to his theory (one I covered last term in my ethics classes.)

Re: Human Nature

Brainpolice — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:45:31 GMT

Okay. Just trying to make sure that we're on the same general page.

Re: Human Nature

Don Roberto — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:40:31 GMT

Brainpolice:

Just to clarify: what you're refering to as "subjective rationality" would be whatever the individual's own preference scale is, right? Subjective value. On the other hand, "objective rationality" would be whatever preference is actually objectively good for that person's well-being, which we cannot always know because we are not omniscient, right? And the fundamental sense in which I say that everyone is objectively rational, that I mention above, is something different then both of these things. What I mean in saying that everyone is rational is merely the fact that they have the capacity to choose. It isn't meant to imply that their actual choices will necessarily be the correct ones. It's just a description of the distinguishing feature of human beings, I.E. a higher sense of self-awareness and the capacity to have an intricate subjective value scale in the first place.

Seems about right

Re: Human Nature

Brainpolice — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:24:46 GMT

The individual making his choices is never an object to the objective rationality due to lack of information or his personal differences from others. The acting man always uses subjective rationality to make the best choice available to him.

The objective rationality is something that the utilitarians tend to use. In my opinion this is a serious mistake since even they can't know everything. The objective rationality, I think, could only be used by God or some other entity governing man and the rest of existence.

Just to clarify: what you're refering to as "subjective rationality" would be whatever the individual's own preference scale is, right? Subjective value. On the other hand, "objective rationality" would be whatever preference is actually objectively good for that person's well-being, which we cannot always know because we are not omniscient, right? And the fundamental sense in which I say that everyone is objectively rational, that I mention above, is something different then both of these things. What I mean in saying that everyone is rational is merely the fact that they have the capacity to choose. It isn't meant to imply that their actual choices will necessarily be the correct ones. It's just a description of the distinguishing feature of human beings, I.E. a higher sense of self-awareness and the capacity to have an intricate subjective value scale in the first place.

Re: Human Nature

Beaners — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:11:09 GMT

Brainpolice:
[...]

Thanks for the links, I'll check it out these days. From my first glance he covered major points on this topic and while social contract theory is unbelievable fallicios by itself it seems (at least to me) that he might still be missing one point, that is, whether or not the Natural Anarchy would be stable and not ultimately lead to a Hobbesian-State Anarchy. Once I finished reading, I'll post on this again.

Re: Human Nature

Don Roberto — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:09:12 GMT

Nathyn:

ViennaSausage:
What is the Libertarian view of Human Nature? With respect to Austrian Economics. I would conjecture that Free Will plays a primary role in the Libertarian and Austrian view of Human Nature. Are we by nature competitive or cooperative? Both? Neither?

The Libertarian view of human nature is as follows:

*People are generally egoistic

*People are generally rational

That's about it. Both of those are true, but incomplete. People are often irrational and egoism is the root of this. Furthermore, at the heart of human nature is Buddha-nature. Real human nature is Buddha-nature clouded by ego. The "human nature" which leads people to buy more of a good when the price goes down and less of a good when the price goes down is superficial and just as reflective of stupidity as rationality.

You just made me seriously doubt whether you have ever read anything on the austrian preferencescales. The individual making his choices is never an object to the objective rationality due to lack of information or his personal differences from others. The acting man always uses subjective rationality to make the best choice available to him.

The objective rationality is something that the utilitarians tend to use. In my opinion this is a serious mistake since even they can't know everything. The objective rationality, I think, could only be used by God or some other entity governing man and the rest of existence.