People have been using all sorts of different layouts for cell phone key inputs. They have no problem switching.
Hmm my phone is QWERTY. Which phones use a different layout?
I just thought of another example that I’ve got some personal experience with: video game controllers/controls.
I’ve been playing console games for at least 10 or 15 years and I’ve been playing consoles since the Genesis. Those controllers have led to the modern ones and I’m pretty used to the current console controllers, in particular, the Xbox 360 controller. Ok, so I buy this game called Aion for PC and I spend the next two weeks wanting to punch myself in the face because I just can’t get used to using the keyboard and mouse. So eventually I quit the game and go back to console gaming. I’ve had so many people tell me that the keyboard and mouse are superior but I absolutely prefer the console controllers because that’s what I’m used to. It’s what I know. Path dependency.
I had the same problem when I got Doom 3. It took me forever to figure out the Keyboard/mouse thing. However, I wanted to enjoy the game so much that I forced myself to figure it out.
You have more determination than I do.
I’m a creature of habit. About a lot of things.
And I have always had a lot of faith in the saying: “do what you’ve always done and you’ll get what you’ve always gotten.”
Thanks, but i don’t think that is the case.
In my mind the “pain” of giving up the game outweighed the pain of learning the new style.
It seems that in your mind the pain of learning the new style outwieghed the pain of giving up playing the game.
It looks like we simply had 2 different subjective valuations of our choices.
So what does this mean to you in terms of path dependency? Is it possible that certain people, ideas (anything really) can retain dominance simply because people are used to those people, ideas or whatever? Do people really try to find “best” or do they simply try to find something that they can get used to that works reasonably well for them?
Imagine we’re having this conversation some 80’00 years ago (I know, but please…).
A: hey, can you believe this idea that this guy pulled about how there are superior people?
B: yeah, unbelievable.
A: and how they can even transmit their superior abilities to their offsprings?
B: right, and create dynasties. There’s no such thing.
A; yes, fascist fool.
And than our dear Neanderthals go extinct because goddamn Homo Sapiens comes about!
My point: evolution exists! There is always someone who’s got beter genes than you do, and excels in many things. He might have self-confidence, a readier mind, courage, perhaps have them all. And it appear all but impossible that he can transmit such values with his genes. Now, I’m not saying that this always happens. But it certainly can happen, and did so in the past. So, yes there are natural elites, and yes, they tend to be dynastic. Hoppe’s ideas might truly seem hard the first time. But if you get used to them, you’ll se that he’s quite right.
Il sangue non e aqua.
To read hoppe you have to be someone who is not shocked by anything. If I had given “Democracy; The God That Failed”, to some liberal at my school, she would probably throw it across the room.
All groups have elites. Under democracy those elites are smooth talkers. Under capitalism they are the people who can buy capital and keep via satisfying consumer desire.
I don’t buy the idea that natural elites are genetically determined however. Maybe by a slight margin. 10% tops, but it’s unbelievable to me that such low variations of genetic data could have such an effect on a matter of anything less than a hundred thousand years. I’m no biologist though so I could be wrong.
And I don’t see why call them natural elites in such case, since their abilities come not from something unattainable to everyone else, but from their culture, information, which can eventually be leaked to the masses.
More like… “really smart people for their time”. The more interesting question is, like others said, how did they came about in each situation. Was it by coercion, or free association?
If you’re going to rely on anecdotal evidence, instead of theoretical reasoning as provided the Mises passages above, then for every Toyota and Ford (both of whom have had lackluster performances anyway) there are countless spoiled rotten trust-fund brats who end up consuming capital that their parents accumulated.
Taking just this passage it would seem some sort of a general elite is presumed. That is flawed in my opinion. Sure there will be elite people as they are now, but there is no reason why someone’s opinion should carry weight on a wide area. I do not see why it would be any different than now. Different people are consulted in different fields. There is division of elitism so to say. You may value the opinion of a certain movie critic in regard to movies, but not in regard to fashion. You may listen to a local hermit’s pirate radio station for his advice on nutrition, but plug your ears to his ideas in regard to spirituality.
Sure, I can see someone specialising into being a “wise man”, but that part of being elite is not different to someone becoming valuable for something else, eg being able to provide good medical advice. There is no reason why you should think of your medical doctor as a super cultured, superiorly civilized nobleman. So why would you come to think that of your local wise county judge or whatever?
The question is do/will such people and such a situation exist? A two-tiered society with a few noble families at the forefront with the non-elite following behind in awe of their achievement, sense, courage and noble lineage?
No. Hoppe on the contrary speculates that the state emerged as an alliance of a single judge and of the envious masses against the rest of the judges ie the natural elites.
You are the one trying to refute Hoppe with irrelevant arguments. The spoiled rotten trust fund brats never become chairmen of family enterprise. I am simply providing the evidence that his theory is correct, that those families that do raise their children with outstanding moral character continue the family’s tradition of leadership and excellence. One generation builds upon another to become an elite class. Denial of this fact is base egalitarianism.
Your disparaging of Ford and Toyota is completely disingenuous. They are the industry leaders now. Ford is the only American automaker that is profitable. Toyota took the number one automaker spot from GM last year.
How is the disinterest of Misesian sovereign consumers to past accomplishment irrelevant?
Exactly, which is anecdotal evidence (no more weak than your anecdotal evidence) that success doesn’t always beget next-generational success, but often results in inherited laurel-resting.
Again: anecdotal evidence, which can be easily countered with opposing anecdotal evidence.
I see. If you don’t toe the Stranger line on IP, you’re a communist. And if you don’t toe the Hoppe line on the inevitability of ossified elite classes, you’re an egalitarian. Charming.
Stranger, I’m talking about what I THINK will happen based on a praxeological analysis of the operations of an unhampered market, not what I WANT to happen based on moral judgments. So calling me an “egalitarian” is entirely beside the point.
Don’t try to read my mind to glean how honest I am in my intentions. It’s rude and distracting.
The point is that the natural elite is the opposite of ossified, they are the most dynamic members of society due to their genetic and character inheritance. This is why they continue to lead and continue to excel over many generations.
If you refuse to see this in the leadership of Mr. Toyoda and Ford, you are in pure denial that can only be explained by base egalitarianism. The success of their family-run enterprise in the third and fourth generation is an outcome of natural elitism. They have not randomly become leaders of great authority.
Short answer: no, Lilburne explained why in terms of economics. Those that are successful will be continually tested by the investors and the marketplace (other competitors). If they’re better than most at what they do, they all the reason to be considered the elite at it, but not to be worshiped or held without application of common standard [of performance]. So, I can’t imagine a feudal society coming about as Hoppe imagines. I sometimes wonder if he’s just pulling that stunt to get European conservatives to stand with him on anarchy.
Obviously I’m talking about the ossification of something else than you, not “all the ways in which the word ‘ossification’ can be applied”.
What part of “anecdotal evidence” don’t you understand?
Nah it is just a sexy idea.