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.
"Nutty as squirrel shit."
I seriously laughed out loud at that and Buzz Killington verified this answer
"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."
What does this mean?
"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."
I don't trust your ability to predict how to properly solve the drug problem when billions of dollars in dozens of countries have failed to effectively do so.
Sure, if you define "0" as "1" you could say that 0=1. And if you clarify that by "country chooses X" you mean that < or = 50% - 1 did not choose X, sure. It wouldn't negate the fact that the individuals that make up the < or = 50% - 1 did not demonstrate a preference for collectivism and may not see increased utility from the adoption of such policies.
I find it somewhat funny that many Austrian economists and libertarians claim that only individuals exist and act and "society," "nation," and "state" are fictional entities that cannot, in fact, exist or act, while collectivists maintain that society, nation, and state are real entities that exist and act and "individuals" are, at best, simply nuisances, and at worst, non-existant and irrelevant.
And that's a fundamental truth: for collectivist theory to work, it must be assumed that, for all intents and purposes, "individuals" don't exist and are, therefore, irrelevant.
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.
I don't know, but I thought it sounded profound.
They don't want to solve the problem. The CIA is active in the drug trade. Are you going to tell me what's wrong with my strategy?
Also, banning fast food may be a better solution than putting obese people in concentration camps.
The government can solve unemployment by hiring people to spy on their neighbors and report whether they are eating fatty foods. A vast gestapo of fast food watch dogs. It will also stimulate the economy because of the high profits made by the black market for junk foods
conclude that the raison d’etre of the masses is formless consumption
This explains Americans
Watch up to 1:15
Alright alright, screw banning fast food, that would greatly lower national social cohesion, but I still have a point about utility theory. Admit it.
Buzz Killington:If libertarians believe in demonstrated preference, then what about countries that decide to adopt socialism instead of voting for capitalism?
I still have a point about utility theory.
Banning fast food wouldn't solve the issue of obesity because over eaters could still over eat on other food; what's required is a better understanding of health and nutrition and a culture of physical fitness.
... just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own - Albert Jay Nock
You show me a majority of citizens (not voters) in a given country who "decided" to adopt socialism and I'll show you a bridge in Brooklyn I have for sale.
What the hell does "citizens" mean if you can't look at what people vote for?
No, you do not. A nation cannot have utility gains or losses, because a nation cannot act. Only individuals can have utility gains or losses.
The majority of individuals comprising various countries have chosen to adopt socialism. Happy?
Still waiting on a reply to my previous post, btw.
I did reply to it.
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. In relation to this is that even those who rob suffer a decrease in utility from theft, since they would no doubt prefer to live in a world without theft. i.e. it's better to be random joe schmo in libertopia than a criminal warlord in modern Africa.
Why don't you move to North Korea?