When I get in debates about the possibility of a free society many people not familiar or against a free society make the claim that it could never work because not everyone is rational. To me being rational just means having the ability to use reason to make choices and figure out the world around you but it seems like most people use a different definition.
Am I missing something or is the “all humans are rational” argument made in terms of economics and not in general?
somehow because people are fallible free societies can’t work, but slave societies can. go figure.
They are just using a different definition of rational.
Austrians tend to use “rational” in the Misesian sense, using means to achieve desired ends, purposeful action.
While they tend to use rational as, YOUR preferences and/or beliefs do not match mine. Thus you are irrational.
Its made in terms of economics I’m sure. The idea being that whatever choice the individual made while not under coercion being the decision the individual valued the most at the time it was made. Regret or ignorance has nothing to do with it. I might buy a piece of candy even though I know its bad for my health- but at the time I bought the candy I valued the taste of candy over my health.
Those people you debate are arguing against themselves since they think an “irrational” group of people should have centralized power over everyone else, and that those people should be elected to that position by the “irrational” populace.
No no no, the overlords are wise, benevolent, all knowing (only the “rational” ideas), and only care for the good of the people!!!
Thanks for the replies guys. So is it safe to say that arguing with these people is useless and therefore I shouldn’t waste my time? I mean I know I can’t convince everyone of the viability of a free society but the effort seems worthwhile.
well its hard to say… on its own without supporting arguments. does not directly entail . There needs to be an argument connecting the two statements together…what are these peoples arguments?
<people most often have 2 arms and 2 legs> … ???..
the important bit is missing
underpants gnomes.
People tend to use the sense of the word rational to mean, supporting their long term or “normal” goals, in this case no, of course not everyone is rational. In terms of Austrian definitions and strictly speaking the term means doing what appears to be best to the individual based upon any information or values which the individual has at any particular point in time, and then of course any conscious human action is rational.
Ive been doing the approach that LibertyStudent does. I listen to people and ask them questions about how they feel about the situation. I dont tell them about my anarcho-capitalist views unlesss they ask, and if they do, I tell them to go to mises.org,cato.org, lewrockwell.com.
From time to time I debate with people. I have no delusions that I might convince anyone. I just do it for kicks, I actually enjoy debating at my college. The things that people say are hilarious.
Education is not a merchandise, it`s a right, and everyone should have free education.
Every terrian(whatever that means) has a right to 1000$ life salary,500$ for childre. It`s a right
We live in a world filled with capitalist pigs, capitalism is fascism
well its hard to say… on its own without supporting arguments. does not directly entail . There needs to be an argument connecting the two statements together…what are these peoples arguments?
<people most often have 2 arms and 2 legs> … ???..
the important bit is missing
underpants gnomes.
Gotcha!
There is a lot of truth in that.
It may in fact be true that John Tyrant is better at achieving his own ends than the average Joe. That doesn’t entail that John Tyrant would be better at achieving Joe’s ends if he made Joe’s decisions for him. This is a very common fallacy. Not everyone is equally adept at using the available means to achieve their own chosen ends. It does not follow from this that those who are best at achieving their own ends using the available means would be better at achieving the ends of others who are less adept if empowered to make decisions in their stead.
Clayton -
Unfortunately, yes.
Clayton,
Wouldn’t the person you are arguing with first have to believe in your definition of “rational” in order to agree with what you wrote? So would it still be considered a fallacy if my definition of “rational” was something other than Man using means to achieve his ends?
The people you are arguing with are errecting a strawman. Rationality in economics just means that people act to achieve a certain end (which everyone before me has stated). It doesn’t mean that what they choose to do will ultimately end up being in their best interest. But at the time they make that choice,they are maximizing the expected value of their future utility. So any time someone says “people make bad choices all the time” you can dismiss it because that has nothing to do with rationality.
Justinx0r,
So outside of economic discussions a different definition of “rational” should be used? I ask only because I took the standard Misesian definition of “rational” and applied it to all different subjects which may be the reason why so many people disagree.
Well economics is basically the study of how humans interact with each other so I wouldn’t shy away from using that definition of rationality. The economic definition of rationality applies to people no matter what.
Austrianism adopts a very “weak” sense of rationality, i.e. purposeful behaviour. In that sense, yes. Other usages of the term (e.g. in an ethical or financial sense) differ in strength and so subsume smaller groups of individuals.
Jon,
What would you say is a “stronger” definition of rational?