What qualifies as low time preference for humans? Where’s the cut-off point between low and high?
It’s a relative, not absolute distinction. You may be presented with a choice that gives a short (-er) term result of lower magnitude and a choice that gives a long (er) terms result with higher magnitude. In this case, you are trading off time preference and absolute value. It could be one marshmallow now vs. two marshmallows in ten minutes or a smaller house now vs. a larger house in five years. (Or smoke now vs. be cancer-free in 20 years.)
Obviously, if the choice is two marshmallows now vs. one marshmallow in five minutes, it’s not a serious choice. There will be no conflict there.
A way to generalize this is to make it a choice between something more abstract and something more concrete. The value of something concrete is easy to appreciate. The value of something more abstract is more difficult to appreciate. But oftentimes, the abstract choice tends to have more information built in into it and therefore has a better long-term outcome. (For instance, when a parent tells a child not to eat too much ice cream, the reason is abstract for the child, since the child does not have the experience and theoretical knowledge of the parent. The same way when a doctor tells a patient not to over-eat. Even if the patient knows that overeating is bad, that knowledge is more theoretical, while the experienced pleasure is more immediate.)
The reason why a long-term choice is more likely to be better is that long-term choices tend to be also more abstract.
You see the same dichotomy in religion too. Those religions (like Christianity or Islam) that are focused on eschatology (the world-to-come) present a trade-off between immediate pleasures and long-term awards of a greater nature. Those religions (like Judaism) that focus on the immediate effect of an action (not that there is no eschatology in Judaism; it’s just less imporant) present the choice as a trade-off between instant gratification of one’s animal desires and more abstract knowledge that one has done a universal good.
From economics point of view, long-term results are more beneficial because of saving and accumulation.
Ok thanks. So I’m reading this article again and I can’t help but notice how vague this advice is. What I mean is that the advice is absent very much context. Where are these libertarian evangelizers trying to convert people? Who are these people?
I’m pretty sure that pussy even stopped wearing bow ties after Stewart railed on him, seriously grow a pair and keep that thing on! lol
Don’t care who used to wear them I think they can look real chic - no I don’t own a bow tie I doubt I could pull off the look. Please don’t wear them out of hero worship though, style is style regardless.
“Any rational person would fear fighting a person who is wearing a bow tie. It also serves as a shield against attacks to the throat.”
Those comments cracked me up. John James’ comment came off as very asshole-ish but you got some mad linking skills I’ll give you that.
I have sprayed people in voluntaryist soup in several forums, and people just don’t respond. However, there is a time and place for choosing moral arguments over consequentialist arguments… as the John James indicates.
People need to be hearing these ideas…if for nothing else than to shock them out of their matrix sleep. People don’t have to be “impressed” by your adherence to principle. They just have to be piqued, or triggered, or otherwise engaged by the principle itself.
Any attempt to force anarchism down such their throats will only cause them to vomit it right out.
Lol, I used that expression a week ago on here.
I think you’re right. I the time vicinity myself actually. That was also soon before Crossfire got canceled as well. And Stewart is basically credited with that too. One man wrecking crew that guy was. Watch the full interview. It’s a beautiful thing. I can’t say he stopped attacking the media like that over the years, but I wish he would do more of it.
Consequentialist argumentation is the only form of argumentation which is really compelling to most people. Whether or not you believe in utilitarianism, the fact is that most people believe in some awkward combination of rights-based and utilitarian ethics. Therefore the only real way to convince most people is by arguing for the improvement in living standards that results from the transition to a free market. That’s what’s compelling, not the “ethical” approach, which could result in what many people consider an unethical situation. You can’t change people’s values very easily, you can play to their values by changing their conception of something quite easily.
It’s effective to combine consequentialism with suggested ethics in the same argument. E.g. the incentives of the state are no different from the mafia, therefore the state must also be parasitic - therefore it appears that the state is an evil institution; or forcefully extracting wealth from producers is similar to slavery, and both are harmful to productivity - therefore it would seem that taxation is a form of slavery, and so must be abolished.
For the record; that blogpost is not an official statement of the entirety of SFL. There was some criticism from within SFL as well.
You can find one follow up blogpost to criticize the position taken here. The position defended in that blogpost is probably closer to what some people here defend. (Maybe not 100% what you would argue for, but closer nonetheless.)
I work with Casey and he is a very good guy. However - as I told him - I disagree with some parts of this blogpost, as did others in SFL.
In a way, telling a statist that “taxation is theft”, is like telling the owner of an oversized pick-up truck that “you don’t need to make up for the size of your weaner.” It’s brutally honest, but also likely to provoke righteous indignation.
Implied ethics is more useful. E.g. by pointing out that the state is just a stockpile of weapons, you not only point out the limitations of what the state can actually do, but also imply that what appears to be armed robbery is probably a bad thing. We want to erode the statist’s emotional attachment to the state, but they must be the ones who connect the dots, otherwise they may not grasp the full picture.
Since the only valid non consequenstionlist justification I’m aware of are Argumentation ethics and to some extent de-Jassay’s presumption of liberty, both highly complex, subtle and technical, and since the human psyche is very results rather than logical consistency oriented, and further since every ought presumes a can (you can’t prescribe what is unworkable) I easily agree.
So you mean historically based, not logically based - am I right?
Yes that’s right.
Okay, thanks. I thought you meant “based” in the sense of “logically based”. Sorry for the confusion there.
No problem. I suppose I was just saying that the observation of the customs of property that evolved simultaneously and independently across (almost?) all agricultural societies was the inspiration for the NAP. In a similar way, observation of market prices was one of the inspirations for the study of economics, despite its a priori nature.
Re: “Was wondering what people here think about this.”
Typical activist fallacy. More so; if you want to use the “consequentialist approach” i.e be “value free” = that is what AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS IS FOR.
Sorry, consequentalism fails remarkably - in all facets for libertarianism / political philosophy.
“As regards the utilitarian position, the proof contains its ultimate refutation. It demonstrates that simply in order to propose the utilitarian position, exclusive rights of control over one’s body and one’s homesteaded goods already must be presupposed as valid. More specifically, as regards the consequentialist aspect of libertarianism, the proof shows its praxeological impossibility: the assignment of rights of exclusive control cannot be dependent on certain outcomes. One could never act and propose anything unless private property rights existed prior to a later outcome. A consequentialist ethic is a praxeological absurdity. Any ethic must instead be “aprioristic” or instantaneous in order to make it possible that one can act here and now and propose this or that rather than having to suspend acting until later. Nobody advocating a wait-for-the-outcome ethic would be around to say anything if he took his own advice seriously. Also, to the extent that utilitarian proponents are still around, they demonstrate through their actions that their consequentialist doctrine is and must be regarded as false. Acting and proposition-making require private property rights now and cannot wait for them to be assigned only later.” - HHH, pg 354, economics and ethics of private property
Conza, I trust you wouldn’t start expaining AE to a socialist… even if you would persuade him to some extent of AE it wouldn’t make a difference.
I find that simply explaining something simple such as the minimum wage can be a real mind opener.. I think It’s a matter of practicality AFAIC..
If they really are consequentialists, then if the government told them that killing their children would usher in Heaven on Earth, they would gladly and eagerly do so.
Assuming “Heaven on Earth” means killing your children and randomly obeying orders from govt.
For instance: why are minimum wages bad?
Ethical argument: because they violate people’s right to freedom of contract.
Economic argument: because they increase unemployment.
These are both ethical arguments. If you ask why “something is bad”, all I can give is an ethical response
My video: