this guy was my lecturer at uni for Pol economy course. literally the BEST lecturer ever. i would sit in class and not write a thing yet come out knowing everything.
amazing guy .. would go to his lecturers about how the sky is blue thats how great he is.
This is excellent and I am grateful that someone has picked up this mantle of Public Choice Theory and is carrying it forward. There has been a vacuum in analysis of 'government action.'
We also have to look at how markets institutions condition the POLITICAL outcomes due to their self interested behavior, since corporations are aloud to lobby (i.e. BRIBE politicians), and thus get their way in the market due to laws which favor them which are put in place by the self-interested politicians who looking to gain more of a piece of that market's pie.
@CurtHowland Hi Curt. "..loathsome condition.."?? Isn't it just rational behaviour on the part of the politician? (It's a loathsome action maybe, but the condition is just that of "self interest" isn't it)?
It's just theft of course, and theft is loathsome. Is it the tendency to steal (if the opportunity arises) that you mean is loathsome?
(I still haven't made up my mind about absolute morality yet. I should read stef's book - universal preferable behaviour, I guess).
@zalida100 I admit that the non-aggression axiom is an "absolute" morality, but it is one I came to after considerable philosophical and logical effort, rather than just being told to do so.
The loathsome condition of humanity is that people live by violence and threat of violence on their fellow people, no less slavery than if the chains were physical rather than legal.
Given the incentives, yes it is rational on the part of politicians. Just like rational slave owners throughout history.
@CurtHowland I see what you mean now. I thought that you meant it was a somehow a (unavoidable) condition of being human that people prey on other people etc. I think that the recognition of property rights & non- agg - princ would certainly ensure the reduction of conflict by 99+% or so.
".like rational slave owners throughout history..." Yep. Almost. However, the politician is a pure parasite. (There is no useful product at the end of the politician's action). ..........
@zalida100 ..cont'd... The slave owner could possibly have gained more if his workers were paid labour. i.e. His actions were rational, but we could possibly argue that it may have been "more rational?" for him to free the slaves and hence increase productivity. (Free men produce more than slaves etc).
Anyway, at least I understand better, what you meant.
@zalida100 While free labor is more productive than slave labor, if for no other reason than not having to pay guards, there was a serious lack of imagination as well.
Jefferson freed a slave, and then the slave had to leave and go find work. He failed, and Jefferson thought he couldn't free slaves -yet-.
Maybe he just never thought of simply hiring them in place, changing their status from slaves to free employees while NOT making them leave, something easy to imagine now.
@CurtHowland "..lack of imagination as well.." Yes, if a slave figures a cheaper way to do something, he has no incentive to tell his owner about it.
"..he couldn't free slaves -yet.." And I thought he was supposed to be smart - heheh. (of course lots of things were different then. In many ways I think people were smarter than today).
I've started Hoppe's book - Democracy - the god that failed. Have you read it? I'm lovin it.
@zalida100 I haven't read it, I've read -about- it, and watched the YouTube presentations Hoppe has done, as well as the audio of Hoppe on Mises. org when the book came out.
Try his "WW1 as the end of civilization", it also points out how things have gotten worse in the world since "democracy" came to be the dominant government buzz-word.
@CurtHowland "..WW1 as the end of civilization.." is pretty much what he says in the book too. Yes.
He describes, very well, the illusion that democracy is the means by which people think they have control of themselves and hence they are fooled into thinking that they are the state & so they are willing to fight wars etc etc.
Dam!..I should've known. I suggest a book, and you throw one right back at me! Now I've got 2 books to read. I guess you're winning - haha (cool)
It's not the "illusion of democracy", it's a lack thereof. For instance, during the run-up to the Iraq War a majority only favored an invasion only if the UN approved (it didn't) and that's along with a smaller group that completely opposed invasion of any kind.
Well the democratic thing to do would of been not to invade.
@AndroidPolitician "..It's not the "illusion of democracy", it's a lack thereof...." No. I disagree. The point we were discussing is that even if politicians acted according to the propaganda (rules) of democracy, the idea that people have any say in what happens is illusory.
As you said in your example, the west is supposed to be democratic, but obviously it is not. Also, the fact that people have fallen for this democracy stuff, ensures more and larger wars.
one hot lecturer. oh my.
strippingzombie 4 months ago
Comment removed
BlackNGoldBuff13 6 months ago
this guy was my lecturer at uni for Pol economy course. literally the BEST lecturer ever. i would sit in class and not write a thing yet come out knowing everything.
amazing guy .. would go to his lecturers about how the sky is blue thats how great he is.
mandygillio 6 months ago 5
This is excellent and I am grateful that someone has picked up this mantle of Public Choice Theory and is carrying it forward. There has been a vacuum in analysis of 'government action.'
equsnarnd 8 months ago in playlist Public Choice Theory
We also have to look at how markets institutions condition the POLITICAL outcomes due to their self interested behavior, since corporations are aloud to lobby (i.e. BRIBE politicians), and thus get their way in the market due to laws which favor them which are put in place by the self-interested politicians who looking to gain more of a piece of that market's pie.
seanotube85 1 year ago
@seanotube85 If govt power were not available to be bought, there would be no corruption.
I agree, it's a loathsome condition of humanity.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland Hi Curt. "..loathsome condition.."?? Isn't it just rational behaviour on the part of the politician? (It's a loathsome action maybe, but the condition is just that of "self interest" isn't it)?
It's just theft of course, and theft is loathsome. Is it the tendency to steal (if the opportunity arises) that you mean is loathsome?
(I still haven't made up my mind about absolute morality yet. I should read stef's book - universal preferable behaviour, I guess).
zalida100 11 months ago
@zalida100 I admit that the non-aggression axiom is an "absolute" morality, but it is one I came to after considerable philosophical and logical effort, rather than just being told to do so.
The loathsome condition of humanity is that people live by violence and threat of violence on their fellow people, no less slavery than if the chains were physical rather than legal.
Given the incentives, yes it is rational on the part of politicians. Just like rational slave owners throughout history.
CurtHowland 11 months ago
@CurtHowland I see what you mean now. I thought that you meant it was a somehow a (unavoidable) condition of being human that people prey on other people etc. I think that the recognition of property rights & non- agg - princ would certainly ensure the reduction of conflict by 99+% or so.
".like rational slave owners throughout history..." Yep. Almost. However, the politician is a pure parasite. (There is no useful product at the end of the politician's action). ..........
zalida100 11 months ago
@zalida100 ..cont'd... The slave owner could possibly have gained more if his workers were paid labour. i.e. His actions were rational, but we could possibly argue that it may have been "more rational?" for him to free the slaves and hence increase productivity. (Free men produce more than slaves etc).
Anyway, at least I understand better, what you meant.
Thanks for reply. Cheers
zalida100 11 months ago
@zalida100 While free labor is more productive than slave labor, if for no other reason than not having to pay guards, there was a serious lack of imagination as well.
Jefferson freed a slave, and then the slave had to leave and go find work. He failed, and Jefferson thought he couldn't free slaves -yet-.
Maybe he just never thought of simply hiring them in place, changing their status from slaves to free employees while NOT making them leave, something easy to imagine now.
CurtHowland 11 months ago
@CurtHowland "..lack of imagination as well.." Yes, if a slave figures a cheaper way to do something, he has no incentive to tell his owner about it.
"..he couldn't free slaves -yet.." And I thought he was supposed to be smart - heheh. (of course lots of things were different then. In many ways I think people were smarter than today).
I've started Hoppe's book - Democracy - the god that failed. Have you read it? I'm lovin it.
zalida100 11 months ago
@zalida100 I haven't read it, I've read -about- it, and watched the YouTube presentations Hoppe has done, as well as the audio of Hoppe on Mises. org when the book came out.
Try his "WW1 as the end of civilization", it also points out how things have gotten worse in the world since "democracy" came to be the dominant government buzz-word.
CurtHowland 11 months ago
@CurtHowland "..WW1 as the end of civilization.." is pretty much what he says in the book too. Yes.
He describes, very well, the illusion that democracy is the means by which people think they have control of themselves and hence they are fooled into thinking that they are the state & so they are willing to fight wars etc etc.
Dam!..I should've known. I suggest a book, and you throw one right back at me! Now I've got 2 books to read. I guess you're winning - haha (cool)
zalida100 11 months ago
@zalida100
It's not the "illusion of democracy", it's a lack thereof. For instance, during the run-up to the Iraq War a majority only favored an invasion only if the UN approved (it didn't) and that's along with a smaller group that completely opposed invasion of any kind.
Well the democratic thing to do would of been not to invade.
AndroidPolitician 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndroidPolitician "..It's not the "illusion of democracy", it's a lack thereof...." No. I disagree. The point we were discussing is that even if politicians acted according to the propaganda (rules) of democracy, the idea that people have any say in what happens is illusory.
As you said in your example, the west is supposed to be democratic, but obviously it is not. Also, the fact that people have fallen for this democracy stuff, ensures more and larger wars.
zalida100 11 months ago