Actually, yes. They were told by An Authority Figure (in this case, the person who runs the experiment) that They Should Do X, and for many people They Certainly Don’t Want To Let The Authority Figure Down.
bloomj31,
bloomj31,
Well, that may answer the question for you but, I ASKED YOU a question and your answer isn’t satisfying at all, intellectually speaking.
I’m just curious: Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but your answer “paints” you into a very tight corner because of the assumptions you are making and the worldview you must necessarily embrace. To be more precise, I think it is incoherent and inconsistent and am wondering how you are able to reconcile this.
Let me ask you this: You state (in so many words) that the idea for human freedom is of human construct. Am I correct? If this is so, what condition(s) can you postulate as being the basis of this idea? Am I to imagine a man woke one day and said, “I want to be free?” Where would this idea come from and what possible meaning could the word “freedom” have in this context? Perhaps it is just me but something like this seems absurd just on the face of it.
I suppose freedom would matter most to those who’d been denied it.
Does this give us any insight into why some people choose ‘liberty’ and others choose…something else?
Define the “individual” as you are using it please.
You tell me.
Man is not by his very nature born into society. I see the point your making, and I agree with most of it, but just because man is heavily influenced by society, that does not mean the concept of the individual is meaningless.
Esuric,
I think it would be more accurate to say the fact that he is 'social", that is, that he likes to socialize and interact IS of consequence to his individual essence BUT, this is only a part of his essence, not the whole. If this were not so, what would the word ‘I’ mean outside of this context if ‘I’ did not exist essentially as an individual? In other words, who is ‘I’ referring to?
Well, I think it illustrates the very social nature of man and man’s tendency to see himself as a part of a collective and also the willingness to bow before authority figures even if they don’t agree with the ends or means of the authority figure. I think when I combine this experiment with Asch’s I can see the role that social pressures play in determining public policy and economic policy. I think that it’s probably not politically useful to talk simply about individuals when considering our current situation, but instead group movements that have led us more or less down the path of soft tyranny. However, I think it’s also meaningless to imagine that individuals by themselves will move things in an opposite direction. Rather, I think it will be group forces and group change that ultimately either take us back towards a path of more economic and political freedom. Either way, I think these actions will have to occur at a individual level and at a collective level not either/or exclusively.
I also think that the psychological foundations of policy choices are very much understandable and grounded in human nature and the human condition. For me to understand socialism I need only admit to myself that I would like free stuff too, I would like to be without responsibility.
I would again like to reiterate that I am not denying the existence of the individual. At all. I just think that I exist at an individual and a collective level and that for me, the line is often blurry. But sometimes it’s much less blurry.
I think you are missing the point. Look again.
oh you do. thanks.
That’s slightly different than saying ‘the individual makes no sense’.
But what would cause someone to not even resist?
Then what is he born into? I mean, I would agree that my point is not a utterly sound statement, but it is at worst a metaphor that has a powerful point.
I do not critique the concept of the individual, I do so for the concept of “The Individual” as an island all to himself.
excellent!
You asked me when I imagine the issue came up with people. I’m saying it probably was first an issue to people whose freedom had been denied. You’re saying “why would the word mean anything to them?” It’s not the word that matters but what the word means to people. Freedom would mean nothing to those who had never lost theirs. But it would mean everything to people who had.
Fear of not pleasing the master. Or not fitting in.
I’m not asking you to.
As I stated, I only clarified this so that should we interact in the future, hopefully we do not talk past one another due to the definition that is being poured into the language/terminology.
I don’t know if I find this explanation by Mises complete or if I’m satisfied with it, but it’s what I’ll take in the meantime.
A person is born into the world. A person isn’t born into a society, just as a person isn’t born into an economy or a “free market”.
Society affects the individual, but so does other external phenomena. For example, people in California fear earthquakes, and this too alters their behaviors.