A Conservative view of Government.

[Nadiru]

I mean it's arguing semantics. I wouldn't say they're stupid per se but that they simple don't always make the most rational decisions or act as utility maximizing actors for a host of reasons including ignorance. The economists are idiots though. And most economists who have the sense to recognize how absurd some of the assumptions underlying the basic premises of the neo classical synthesis (and worse the chicago boys and austrian clowns) will basically tell you economists are stupid. Steve Keen loves to ridicule them.

I don't think it's semantical at all: identifying the reasons for imperfect decisionmaking is key to building a model which can deal with it.

[xChurch]

Smaller government sounds appealing, until you realize corporations with more power than local governments will just exert more of their influence. It was never about small vs big government, but rather private vs public.

[Glorious Leader]

I don't think it's semantical at all: identifying the reasons for imperfect decisionmaking is key to building a model which can deal with it.

Sure and I don't disagree. It was more of the term "stupid" because it's kind of broad. I mean is basic ignorance stupid? Well then you've got alot of stupid fucking motherfuckers. I'm not sure you can make that model to be honest. Models are necessarily abstract. At some point your model will deviate from reality because if it didnt you'd just have reality. I suppose you can refine the model but Economics is not a hard science by any means. That DOES NOT MEAN those fucking clown ass austrians have it correct and we cannot reference facts just that we have to understand their are limitations to the field.

[NED funded]

Humans are not rational actors, or acting with perfect information, People approximate, they don't necessarily calculate. And emotion, instinct ect override rational thought regularly, indeed emotion is how we sort thoughts into segments. We are also subject to culture, group think, group dynamics, status and status seeking ect.

A pure economist looking at the atomized individual is completely foolish in trying to manage society, which is probably why he more than anyone else should not be doing it.

- - - Updated - - -



I disagree with Technocracy in general. I expect it as a system to always fail in the end and ultimately just be a tool for a power clique's political ambitions.

If you are saying people are not rational actors, then it follows that is up to someone more knowledgable than them to take decisions for them. Ehem ehem TECHNOCRACY Ehem Ehem,

[Theodarzna]

Smaller government sounds appealing, until you realize corporations with more power than local governments will just exert more of their influence. It was never about small vs big government, but rather private vs public.

Isn't a corporations power derived from the State? As a purely legal construct, if the legal underpinning of its existence was gone, it would not exist.

- - - Updated - - -

If you are saying people are not rational actors, then it follows that is up to someone more knowledgable than them to take decisions for them. Ehem ehem TECHNOCRACY Ehem Ehem,

Would not these people also be human? Are Technocrats human?

[Glorious Leader]

Isn't a corporations power derived from the State? As a purely legal construct, if the legal underpinning of its existence was gone, it would not exist.

- - - Updated - - -



Would not these people also be human? Are Technocrats human?

Corporate power might be but a corporation is just another form of human organization. You can remove their ability to incorporate but it does not stop the power of private capital. It owns the means of production, the means of living. Theoretically the federal government is large enough to ameliorate some of the influence of private capital but it's subject to intellectual capture. Devolution of government power to the states gives even medium sized players the ability to push the government around.

[NED funded]

Would not these people also be human? Are Technocrats human?

You are saying people are stupid, then it logically follows that someone more knowledgable should make decisions for them. Even if they humans not entirely rational, they are more intelligent than the average man and as such their decisions are bound to be more "rational". Like, just now you are arguing for bigger goverment.

[Nadiru]

Sure and I don't disagree. It was more of the term "stupid" because it's kind of broad. I mean is basic ignorance stupid? Well then you've got alot of stupid fucking motherfuckers. I'm not sure you can make that model to be honest. Models are necessarily abstract. At some point your model will deviate from reality because if it didnt you'd just have reality. I suppose you can refine the model but Economics is not a hard science by any means. That DOES NOT MEAN those fucking clown ass austrians have it correct and we cannot reference facts just that we have to understand their are limitations to the field.

I think you hit on a key point of what I'm saying: There are different kinds of stupid, and even if the constellation of different kinds of stupidity can't be modeled, you can certainly take individual categorizations of stupidity and model them. Some kinds of ignorance probably drive specific kinds of consumption, like lottery tickets or alcohol or porn subscriptions.

[Theodarzna]

Corporate power might be but a corporation is just another form of human organization. You can remove their ability to incorporate but it does not stop the power of private capital. It owns the means of production, the means of living.

Localizing power however does destroy their power to operate in mass since they would have to deal with legions of local powers, laws, customs and traditions versus merely corrupting one large central authority and using it for a power bludgeon.

Obviously I would prefer the parts of the government that empower fictional persons to exist at all be the first to be cut out.

[Glorious Leader]

I think you hit on a key point of what I'm saying: There are different kinds of stupid, and even if the constellation of different kinds of stupidity can't be modeled, you can certainly take individual categorizations of stupidity and model them. Some kinds of ignorance probably drive specific kinds of consumption, like lottery tickets or alcohol or porn subscriptions.

My suspicion is many of the things that would qualify as stupidity would be a result of economic conditions to begin with. The lottery is a good example. From the point of view of the impoverished the possibility of winning the lottery (no matter how small) represents a way out of destitution. Now imagine if you raised their living standards.

[Nadiru]

You are saying people are stupid, then it logically follows that someone more knowledgable should make decisions for them. Even if they humans not entirely rational, they are more intelligent than the average man and as such their decisions are bound to be more "rational". Like, just now you are arguing for bigger goverment.

No human is sufficiently rational on every subject to make a compelling case that decisionmaking isn't best left to the individual. Ironically, this is the classical liberal stance which may or may not be contemporary conservatism.

[NED funded]

It's really not. It's saying that for one thing people are approximating and not necessarily calculating. That they make decisions based on limited information. They are not perfect actors with perfect knowledge and predictive ability as the current economic models suggest. They are not necessarily always maximizing utility. They act for a variety of reasons.

What do you mean? Even going for bounded rationality, they are maximising utility. They just take the shorter path to make the most optimal decision considering effort and result.

[Glorious Leader]

Localizing power however does destroy their power to operate in mass since they would have to deal with legions of local powers, laws, customs and traditions versus merely corrupting one large central authority and using it for a power bludgeon.

Not at all. Those can be co-opted as well. The fact is so long as the means of living remain in the hands of few they will always have the ability to strong arm local custom and law. Why can't states be subject to intellectual capture? In fact what's to stop them from replacing the large federal state with a corporate state?

[Nadiru]

My suspicion is many of the things that would qualify as stupidity would be a result of economic conditions to begin with. The lottery is a good example. From the point of view of the impoverished the possibility of winning the lottery (no matter how small) represents a way out of destitution. Now imagine if you raised their living standards.

Perhaps, but it could be that the cost of a lottery ticket is sufficiently low that the potential upside is worth it for most walks of life. I've certainly bought lottery tickets both when I had a well-paying job (>+25% of national average) and when I was down and out.

[xChurch]

Isn't a corporations power derived from the State? As a purely legal construct, if the legal underpinning of its existence was gone, it would not exist.

It wouldn't matter, it would still be an issue of public vs private, would just go from corporations to bankers guilds or some such.

[Glorious Leader]

What do you mean? Even going for bounded rationality, they are maximising utility. They just take the shorter path to make the most optimal decision considering effort and result.

In this conception EVERY decision is simple maximizing utility. I'm sure you could make a case that suicide would be maximizing utility. This is of course completely unscientific since it cannot be falsified.

[Nadiru]

Not at all. Those can be co-opted as well. The fact is so long as the means of living remain in the hands of few they will always have the ability to strong arm local custom and law. Why can't states be subject to intellectual capture? In fact what's to stop them from replacing the large federal state with a corporate state?

Because without the original state backing corporate property rights, the interim transition will be incredibly chaotic as corporations attempting to consolidate power get torched to the ground, perhaps literally.

[Theodarzna]

You are saying people are stupid, then it logically follows that someone more knowledgable should make decisions for them. Even if they humans not entirely rational, they are more intelligent than the average man and as such their decisions are bound to be more "rational". Like, just now you are arguing for bigger goverment.

Why would those humans be magically different than the other humans? Because they have a piece of paper?

I have a masters degree and most on this forum have openly voiced their rather "Kind," opinions about my knowledge of things. If you are sure I am a kook, how have I come to be so educated and yet not your ideal form of technocrat whose will should be law?

The issue is first, why should they have such power to manage peoples lives? People only get one life, why should someone else be controlling it?

Second issue, what guarantee is there that this person would be rational? If humans fundamentally aren't I have no idea why having a credential would change that simple underlying fact.

Third, what guarantee is there for impartiality. A big selling point of Technocratic governance is its alleged impartial optimal solutions, but why would one class of humans no be as biased as any other. Especially since our current IRL examples of Technocracy reveal it to be as ideological bias as any other.

I've not argued for such a thing. My point is that the Technocrat would be no different than anyone else.

- - - Updated - - -

Not at all. Those can be co-opted as well. The fact is so long as the means of living remain in the hands of few they will always have the ability to strong arm local custom and law. Why can't states be subject to intellectual capture? In fact what's to stop them from replacing the large federal state with a corporate state?

Perhaps, but its a lot harder to co-opt 50 different semi/totally autonomous units versus co-opting one emperor.

[Glorious Leader]

Because without the original state backing corporate property rights, the interim transition will be incredibly chaotic as corporations attempting to consolidate power get torched to the ground, perhaps literally.

I mean yea revolution will stop them but that doesn't require devolution to the state. It requires the people to riot.

[Nadiru]

I mean yea revolution will stop them but that doesn't require devolution to the state. It requires the people to riot.

With the culling of governmental influence comes the culling of social norms which might prevent such riots. Not the least of which being that there are fewer police and those police are more permissive.