This may have been done to death in the past here but as I am getting to the end of Atlas Shrugged one of the issues in the book is clearly the judging human action. Rand seems to be strongly of the opinion that peoples actions can be good/bad or making a person more or less “human”. Austrians on the other hand seem to be pulled more in the direction of subjective or individual time preferences and that all choices are rational
The example that came to mind was judging the actions of a drug addict or becoming a drug addict. Now while clearly self ownership takes precedence here I’d be loath to simply say that a drug addict is exercising a rational choice between pleasure or avoiding pain in the present versus the future costs of his actions. Does it come down to saying that from an Austrian perspective people can make a rational choice to “destroy” their lives or are making a rational choice based on poor information/values/upbringing?
I’d be curious on peoples thoughts or am I misrepresenting the 2 positions or leaving out other elements? and excuse if my choice of words are clumsy here
The two groups are after different things. Rothbard definitely had some ideas, with which I agree, about the morality of actions, but the Austrian Economist qua economist is merely taking a scientific look into human action. When a person has such a high time preference that he is willing to jeopardize his future to get a high, he is acting rationally according to how an economist defines the term. Since he prefers the high to his future, he is rational when he chooses the high. The economist does not moralize - not when he is acting as an economist - any more than a nuclear physicist does not moralize when he describes how an atom may be split and therefore might destroy a city of innocent Japanese civilians. The physicist might have strong opinions about the issue, but in expressing these he is not acting as a physicist.
Objectivists were after a different creature entirely. Objectivism is a moral code, and therefore makes judgments about certain actions.
Nice; it would probably confuse people a lot less to use this type of language more often. Non-libertarians like to mock the idea of the “rationality” of human beings by using examples such as the “rational” drug abuser. I agree with them as far as that is concerned; many people are decidedly non-rational, and I don’t think there is such a thing as an entirely rational human being. But to call their actions purposeful rather than rational is a completely different connotation, and one that most people would find hard to disagree with.
Here you’re defining “rational” as “something I agree with”, presumably? Why are your opinions better than anybody elses?
If by “purposeful” you mean “rational”, then it’s clearly not. If you mean something different by it, then, well, yes, but that would also change the meaning of Mises’ words.
One group is doing economics the other is doing ethics, just because the words is the same doesnt mean they are reffering to the same thing/concept. defenition is contexual.
Just on the words “purposeful” or “rational” from an economic point of view, if it simply means that people make choices/”do stuff” in the way that a rock or a jellyfish do not, what implications does it have from an Austrian perspective? Do other schools of economics disagree with the concept or simply do not think it is worth stating?
Also I assume part of the confusion from a political (statist) perspective is that as people can be “irrational” they “ought” to be protected from themselves from time to time by the various arms of the state
The common meaning for irrational (for me) is along the line of out of control or illogical, as in “my wife is being irrational…”
the funny thing is even purposeful has a positive active/in control tinge to it. I cant imagine saying that a junky or drunk staggered down the road with purpose
Not a knock against Mises, since he was working with the knowledge of the time, but there are quite a few broad assertions in there, such as:
I doubt that this quote still holds true today. Many scientists have performed experiments which have shown that unconscious thought processes greatly affect our conscious thought. Then there are states of mind such as meditation or lucid dreaming, in which the boundaries can be said to melt and mix together. In fact, without a thorough knowledge of human biology and psychology, I really don’t think it’s justified to just assert statements like that as fact.
Nonetheless, I don’t think it matters in the end. It’s like the whole free will argument; it doesn’t matter if our actions are really determined by physics and we only believe that we have free will, or if we truly do have free will. The outcomes are the same either way.
To his credit, Mises does clarify this a bit later:
I doubt that this quote still holds true today. Many scientists have performed experiments which have shown that unconscious thought processes greatly affect our conscious though
True, but Mises makes it clear that praxeology is not within the sphere of psychology.
Many scientists have performed experiments which have shown that unconscious thought processes greatly affect our conscious thought. Then there are states of mind such as meditation or lucid dreaming, in which the boundaries can be said to melt and mix together. In fact, without a thorough knowledge of human biology and psychology, I really don’t think it’s justified to just assert statements like that as fact.
Why not? You mean to say you cannot distinguish them? The fact that one has an effect on the other doesn’t mean you can’t…
I believe that I can distinguish them, but I think the reality is that each greatly affects the other more than we’d like to think, and that the boundaries aren’t necessarily so clear-cut. I’ve read studies on where thoughts became apparent in MRI scans before the subjects themselves even realized that they were thinking those thoughts. Lots of stuff like that…
I don’t think it detracts from the main point Mises was making, though. People act irregardless of whether it is due to feelings, conscious thought, logical deduction, subconscious beliefs, instinct, cultural beliefs, genetic programming, influence of chemicals whether through external influences or internal chemical imbalances, or whatever.
In fact, if you want to go into scare-mongering mode, I’m pretty sure I’ve even read a study where scientists were able to “implant” thoughts using a MRI machine. The subjects thought that they were thinking original thoughts, but in reality, their thinking process was being manipulated by the MRI machine. I’m gonna have to find that one again…
I’ve read studies on where thoughts became apparent in MRI scans before the subjects themselves even realized that they were thinking those thoughts
In fact, if you want to go into scare-mongering mode, I’m pretty sure I’ve even read a study where scientists were able to “implant” thoughts using a MRI machine. The subjects thought that they were thinking original thoughts, but in reality, their thinking process was being manipulated by the MRI machine. I’m gonna have to find that one again…
Maybe all we need to do to get our economy turned around is to implant the thought that people don’t need savings, in fact, savings are bad, and that they not only can spend all they like, but that they must spend.
In fact, if you want to go into scare-mongering mode, I’m pretty sure I’ve even read a study where scientists were able to “implant” thoughts using a. The subjects thought that they were thinking original thoughts, but in reality, their thinking process was being manipulated by the MRI machine. I’m gonna have to find that one again…
This is still not within the concern of economics. The fact is, it is IMPOSSIBLE to have an objective way to describe efficient action. All that matters is the calculations of the time, there is no such thing as “the real you” in any purposful sense of the word , it’s a myth. Economics is descriptive not normative.
This issue is more an issue of law, a practiced art, than anything.
I agree. Re: my quote above where I agree with Mises that humans act, regardless of the psychological factors behind it. That’s why I think we don’t even have to bother with describing conscious vs. subconscious action, because it doesn’t change that.
