|
Behind current events, from the idea of regulating the economy to
Obama trying to railroad through socialized healthcare, there's an
interesting contradiction. It's the idea that one can use one's own
mind to invalidate itself.
My subject header expresses this contradiction: "You're crazy, so
follow me." But that's an appeal to the mind of the person to whom
it's addressed.
The little word "so" conveys the contradiction: the listener is
supposed to follow the logic--which presupposes he is sane--to
recognize that he is insane.
For someone really insane, the statement might as well be: "You're
crazy, so don't listen to me." Or, "You're crazy, so pickles are
red."
It's an attempt to persuade a person that he is incapable of being
persuaded, to explain to him that he can't follow any explanation, to
make him understand that he is unable to understand.
You'll note that people don't try this tactic with their dogs and cats.
They don't try to explain to Fido that he is not conceptual, so he
should . . . anything. Instead they either use physical force or offer
rewards and impose penalties.
Now look at our political scene. The idea of regulating the economy
by government coercion comes from the same premise: leaving
people free would mean that--aside from the truly wise like Timothy
Geithner and Ben Bernanke--they would run amok. People's selfish
greed would lead them to poverty (another contradiction). Without
the FDA, they would go on buying tainted food until the streets
were filled with dead bodies (were they before the FDA was
created?--blank-out).
People, it is claimed, cannot be left free for one reason: they are
irrational. They will destroy themselves. Statists think that this
irrationality is inherent in man's nature. It is not that a minority is
irrational. After all, a minority *are* pretty irrational (though not as
irrational as the statists think). But the "solution" offered to the
irrationality of that minority is to leash *everyone*, which means to
deprive the rational majority of the freedom to use their reason.
For instance, it is illegal for anyone to buy certain medications
without a prescription. Why? Because some people would exercise
their freedom irrationally, to their detriment. So the majority who
would be able to decide what pills to swallow are not able to buy
them without government approval. And now, we are not able to
stock up on even the medications that are prescribed; many
medications are only available in a 30-day supply. Why? Because
*some* people might take too many at once. Because there is a
minority of irrational users, the rest of us have to live hand to
mouth, going back to the pharmacy every month to get a new
supply.
The same is true in regard to the licensing of doctors. Because some
people would irrationally patronize quacks, the government initiates
force to prevent the rational majority from using their own minds to
guide their own decisions regarding who is qualified to treat them,
and the government coercively prevents the physicians from
practicing without a license.
This is the sacrifice of the rational to the irrational.
The unadmitted premise is, however, not that a small minority is
unfit for freedom but that the vast majority is. Since that premise is
held by the vast majority, we have another contradiction.
I could say that the logical conclusion of this premise is a
paternalistic dictatorship by an elite, but there is no logic here, for
two reasons. First, everyone thinks that everyone except him and
his friends are the irrational ones. Their attitude is that "the masses"
are crazed brutes. But they know, or could know, that this very
view is held by "the masses"--right down to the proverbial cab
driver. Second, if the majority of mankind is too irrational for
freedom to be practical, then it is too irrational to submit to *any*
rule, whether by a philosopher-king or a demagogue. A constant
civil war, fought with stones and stick among ever-shifting alliances
is all that could result if "the masses" were indeed crazed brutes.
No stable social order, not even fascist or communist dictatorship,
can exist among a population of people too irrational to stop buying
tainted food, stop overdosing on medications, stop depositing in
banks that have no real assets, stop investing in get-rich-quick
schemes, etc. This, incidentally, is the contradiction in Hobbes'
view that an omnipotent government is the solution to the
irrationality of everyone (except Hobbes).
If most people were crazy, they would act crazy. And you couldn't
fix things by saying, "You're crazy so follow me."
The presupposition of expressing any views regarding how society
should be organized is that man is a rational animal.
-edit format
-edit source: this was written by a friend of mine.
|
is this also like asking, should the followers be led by the leaders?
|
Zurich15366 Posts
Could you please give a source for this as apparently you copied this from somewhere else?
|
The sad truth is, this is already happening in most part of the world, even more so in a capitalist society like US. All those "trillionares and high billionares" have the power of our society secretly, influencing the media, having power with wealth, avoiding the taxes when potentially, they can solve the US debt problem just like that, and etc. One prime example: Oil companies.
|
This is really old, although its formulated in a crappy manner.
There are tons of theses around, that take irrational decisions into account, behavioral economics and keynesianism to name a few.
The mentioned paradox is known since economic/social theories exist, although a better formulation would be something along the lines of:
If everyone thinks everyone else acts irrational, everyone will act rational. But if everyone thinks everyone else acts rational, everyone will act irrational.
edit: lol, TL.net is like the worst possible place to discuss stuff like this. The only thing, that is going to be discussed in this thread, is how much influence the big, bad, rich folks have on the government.
|
To answer any "should" question you would have to provide some underlying conception of morality to justifty the answer. As such i'll just go with the nihilisitc approach in answering the question.
No, Yes, Mayb, It is meaningless.
|
While reading this I thought, he must be from USA. And right I was.
Why do you think your nation is the most obese in the world? Right, because people are irrational!
Why are the hard drugs forbidden everywhere in the world? Right, because people are irrational!
And the list can continue.
I'm not surprised, in your country the guns are legal, seems like this is how your nation thinks:-) You need the complete freedom! Still you can't get it. Are you so much afraid to fall in a dictatorship?
Regarding the subject - people really can't be left free. They need some laws. Now who decides what is and what is not allowed is other question. I tend to think that there is a way to select the wisest people from a community (country), to rule them all. This kind of selection would be much better than the selection of pure majority applied now. Don't know still how would the system that chooses the wisest people work.
|
It can be useful to have those two, extra small wheels* to balance your first bike rides.
It would be stupid to leave them on forever, though. Sure, you might get bruised a few times, and maybe get the dent beneath your chin which surprisingly many cyclists have acquired in their youth. But in the end, you'll learn how to ride properly and a lot quicker with all that extra friction removed.
The same holds true in many situations. However in order to apply properly one should be taught while the restrictions are kept in place and then, when deemed educated enough regarding the subject, the restrictions should be removed.
As with the removal of those helping wheels, it is often the parents, not the children, who deem when their removal is in place. The education system should by its nature provide the faculities to learn all that is neccessary for a person to act with no hindrance from imposed restrictions.
In many aspects this is (was) done by parents, and more commonly today, it is the expected result of the schooling system. However, for some reason, the restrictions are not dropped eventhough you have proved to understand the risks.
This should be the focus "For the masses" instead of lulling everyone into the superstitious belief that The Government knows what's good for you.
In regard of commerce and business, regulations are naturally in place in order to avoid gargantuan behemoth companies from imposing their raw force to quelch all competition and grow big enough to dictate laws over the Government.
*Yes, not everyone used those learning wheels to learn how to bicycle safely, but as it is merely a metaphor, you shouldn't have the need prove your exceptionality by pointing that out.
|
United States22883 Posts
It's called a social contract. It's not because people are irrational, but precisely the opposite; we enter into contracts/relationships with other people because it is rational and mutually beneficial.
TL becomes more like a 101 class every day.
EDIT: Apparently Moldova is tapping into our monopoly on stupidity.
|
What is a Man?!?!
Castlevania SOTN covers this in the first 10 seconds of the game, but I'll give it a go.
Most irrational behaviors and certainly the ones you listed are supremely beneficial to somebody who already resides at or near "elite" status. Corporations or government. To prey upon weaker subsets of humanity is simply a smart choice.
It seems your voicing the inherent flaw of governance that it cannot represent everybody without oppressing some. This is a tricky scale to balance.
Complete autonomy is the only logical governance if your to consider your own wants and needs. Effective government would to me, be a central figure with iron rule but the wherewithal to listen to advisers and a slavish devotion to common will. A noble commoner. We await Anestassia.
or maybe I have missed the mark entirely its early and I'm probably still buzzing.
|
Jibba can you give a definition of what it would be to be irrational and conversely rational. I want to argue with you ^^
|
According to evolutionism, being rational entails looking after oneself.
|
On March 22 2010 21:03 Jibba wrote:
It's called a social contract. It's not because people are irrational, but precisely the opposite; we enter into contracts/relationships with other people because it is rational and mutually beneficial.
TL becomes more like a 101 class every day.
EDIT: Apparently Moldova is tapping into our monopoly on stupidity.
What is this social contract you talk of?
|
|
|
Why is this in General and not a blog?
EDIT
On March 22 2010 21:34 tYsopz wrote:
According to evolutionism, being rational entails looking after oneself.
Not necessarily
A gene centred theory of evolution means that the organism can act selflessly in many instances
EDIT2: Sorry I misread the quoted text, and interpreted it as "looking out or oneself is evolutionary optimal" . Apologies
|
From the opening paragraph this article is an unordered, uneffective pile of tripe.
"The presupposition of expressing any views regarding how society
should be organized is that man is a rational animal."
That's a nonsense statement. You can't remove the irrational in any system by simply ignoring it.
|
I was of the understanding that gene centered theories of evolution essentially meant that every single action is at its root the result of genes acting in a way that can be percieved as selfish. Even though we have the capability to act in a way that would lower the chances of our genetic propagation, the capability to act as such only exists as it was beneficial for our own survivial to be able to do so.
The idea of rational and irrational I find quite interesting, to me I often equate it to some kind of "pure, sound reasoning" and not simply concerend with our own wellbeing as individuals.
Who is the more rational, the man who is cautious and prudent with his wealth, always making sure he will be comfortable no matter what the situation, or the man who gambles lavishly on the throw of the dice, adamant and convinced in the belief that he is going to be "lucky" and will win and therefore prosper.
Both are concerned with the wellbeing of the individual, both believe what they are doing to be beneficial to their own survivial (the latter example has it's flaws but as long as it is possible to consider that someone might believe gambling in such a way was beneficial then it can work)
Basically to sum it up, On the evolutionary basis of rationality, is being rational concerned with what you percieve to be beneficial to the self or what is ACTUALLY beneficial.
The latter seems compelling as it would do away with "Man is a rational being, or Man is an irrational being" and instead state "Man is a being capable of different degree's of rational and irrational behaviour".
This has even more complications for me when you consider something like "A man who believes in a tiny rodent, that is magical and gives his life meaning and purpose, is rational in his belief so long as his believing such is advantageous to his survivial, genetic propogation, chances of reproduction, quality of life, mental wellbeing e.t.c"
I would like to hold that the above would be a Rational//Irrational belief based on its likelihood to be true and not on it's bearing on an indiviual with such belief's life.
I'll stop typing now... :O
|
The leaders wont lead us out of the climate crisis so no we should not listen to our leaders.
|
teamliquid should rule the masses.
|
On March 22 2010 20:04 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
Behind current events, from the idea of regulating the economy to
Obama trying to railroad through socialized healthcare, there's an
interesting contradiction. It's the idea that one can use one's own
mind to invalidate itself.
My subject header expresses this contradiction: "You're crazy, so
follow me." But that's an appeal to the mind of the person to whom
it's addressed.
The little word "so" conveys the contradiction: the listener is
supposed to follow the logic--which presupposes he is sane--to
recognize that he is insane.
For someone really insane, the statement might as well be: "You're
crazy, so don't listen to me." Or, "You're crazy, so pickles are
red."
It's an attempt to persuade a person that he is incapable of being
persuaded, to explain to him that he can't follow any explanation, to
make him understand that he is unable to understand.
You'll note that people don't try this tactic with their dogs and cats.
They don't try to explain to Fido that he is not conceptual, so he
should . . . anything. Instead they either use physical force or offer
rewards and impose penalties.
Now look at our political scene. The idea of regulating the economy
by government coercion comes from the same premise: leaving
people free would mean that--aside from the truly wise like Timothy
Geithner and Ben Bernanke--they would run amok. People's selfish
greed would lead them to poverty (another contradiction). Without
the FDA, they would go on buying tainted food until the streets
were filled with dead bodies (were they before the FDA was
created?--blank-out).
People, it is claimed, cannot be left free for one reason: they are
irrational. They will destroy themselves. Statists think that this
irrationality is inherent in man's nature. It is not that a minority is
irrational. After all, a minority *are* pretty irrational (though not as
irrational as the statists think). But the "solution" offered to the
irrationality of that minority is to leash *everyone*, which means to
deprive the rational majority of the freedom to use their reason.
For instance, it is illegal for anyone to buy certain medications
without a prescription. Why? Because some people would exercise
their freedom irrationally, to their detriment. So the majority who
would be able to decide what pills to swallow are not able to buy
them without government approval. And now, we are not able to
stock up on even the medications that are prescribed; many
medications are only available in a 30-day supply. Why? Because
*some* people might take too many at once. Because there is a
minority of irrational users, the rest of us have to live hand to
mouth, going back to the pharmacy every month to get a new
supply.
The same is true in regard to the licensing of doctors. Because some
people would irrationally patronize quacks, the government initiates
force to prevent the rational majority from using their own minds to
guide their own decisions regarding who is qualified to treat them,
and the government coercively prevents the physicians from
practicing without a license.
This is the sacrifice of the rational to the irrational.
The unadmitted premise is, however, not that a small minority is
unfit for freedom but that the vast majority is. Since that premise is
held by the vast majority, we have another contradiction.
I could say that the logical conclusion of this premise is a
paternalistic dictatorship by an elite, but there is no logic here, for
two reasons. First, everyone thinks that everyone except him and
his friends are the irrational ones. Their attitude is that "the masses"
are crazed brutes. But they know, or could know, that this very
view is held by "the masses"--right down to the proverbial cab
driver. Second, if the majority of mankind is too irrational for
freedom to be practical, then it is too irrational to submit to *any*
rule, whether by a philosopher-king or a demagogue. A constant
civil war, fought with stones and stick among ever-shifting alliances
is all that could result if "the masses" were indeed crazed brutes.
No stable social order, not even fascist or communist dictatorship,
can exist among a population of people too irrational to stop buying
tainted food, stop overdosing on medications, stop depositing in
banks that have no real assets, stop investing in get-rich-quick
schemes, etc. This, incidentally, is the contradiction in Hobbes'
view that an omnipotent government is the solution to the
irrationality of everyone (except Hobbes).
If most people were crazy, they would act crazy. And you couldn't
fix things by saying, "You're crazy so follow me."
The presupposition of expressing any views regarding how society
should be organized is that man is a rational animal.
-edit format
-edit source: this was written by a friend of mine.
You're crazy if you're actually taking this at face value. Do you really believe that wise suggestions should be an assumption of one's insanity? If I'm working at a new job, and someone says 'Don't press this button right here,' do you think I'd get angry at the person for telling me not to do so? It's not like its completely obvious that doing so will cost the company a huge amount of money and most likely cost me my job.
How about if you're working on a group project and someone suggests doing something cool and innovative? Do you get angry because you didn't think of it originally or do you go with a creative new idea? Not every suboptimal action is 'irrational'. Every day people put up with little hassles like having to get up and turn off the TV and when someone invents the remote control, they aren't suddenly ruled insane.
"Now look at our political scene. The idea of regulating the economy
by government coercion comes from the same premise: leaving
people free would mean that--aside from the truly wise like Timothy
Geithner and Ben Bernanke--they would run amok. People's selfish
greed would lead them to poverty (another contradiction). Without
the FDA, they would go on buying tainted food until the streets
were filled with dead bodies (were they before the FDA was
created?--blank-out)."
Actually, you could afford to learn some American History. At the turn of the century there was practically no business regulation, and America was rapidly moving towards a singularity and super-monopoly. In fact it may very well have happened if not for the spread of information and books like The Jungle (meatpacking industry, led to the creation of the FDA), The Octopus (About price-gouging in the railroad industry), The Bitter Cry of the Children (about child labor) and How the Other Half Lives (Led to the creation of minimum wage laws and better business labor practices). People were being exploited by big business. So yes, without the control of 'truly wise' people, big business ran amok, and greed led to poverty. It fucking happened, you idiot.
The muckrakers like John Spargo, Frank Norris and Upton Sinclair wrote about these things and brought out the injustices of big business and how unregulated greed could lead to a terrible world.
You seem to underestimate the power money brings. A quack doctor with enough patrons and good enough advertising could eventually marginalize and kill off legitimate medicine. Hence, the government protects legitimate medical practices to make sure its citizens know the difference.
Furthermore, every day people buy cigarettes knowing that they are shortening their own life, thousands of people buy lottery tickets or go to Vegas knowing that the system must takes in far more than it puts out. People are irrational actors and in fact the vast majority, myself included I'm sure, hold some irrational beliefs or superstitions, but I think you underestimate the fact that each person is out to exploit everyone else and that capital makes it that much easier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
