@Ravengaurd6 some people actually believe that their lives would be better if a central power limited their choices to a select few approved options. They think too much freedom is a burden to the individual. Of course these people are morons ... but they honestly believe it.
Stress is caused by concern for the consequences of the choice being made. Will choosing "A" give me a better result than choosing "B"? It's much easier to make choices for others, especially people I'm not likely to meet, since I'm unlikely to suffer any consequences, good or bad. In fact, I probably won't even KNOW the consequences. I don't want some bureaucrat making any choices for me, thank you.
Is it fair to say that the libertarian party is a supporter of existentialist ideals? Many of the arguments in these videos have such undertones and I was just curious. Thoughts?
... I don't believe the garbage that (for most) choice creates stress. I enjoy choice because it allows individuals to be different. Choice allows me to wear New Rock boots, 5 Finger Death Punch hoodies and tripp pants. I don't want to be a clone. I don't compare my choices negatively against those of others. If they have something better, I have the choice to go out and save up to buy what they have - or better. This whole paradox of choice idea only applies to the very immature and materialist
I dont buy it. I dont see anyone complain for too much healthcare, or too much education. It is too much war spending that most people could agree on cutting. Nationalize Oil companies to pay for free health care
The abundance of choice - especially meaningless choice like in breakfast cereal and other exact same product with a different box, like life insurance, cars, consumer electronics, etc. - is actually caused by government intervention.
With natural interest rates, businesses would not be able to profit from flooding the market with so many similar products. They'd lose money, because it is 'not worth it' to produce items of such low value to consumers. How can we profit as an 8th place cereal?
@stevemcgee99 - I honestly don't think this is true. Producing similar items to name brands is profitable. An eighth place cereal can capitalize on trends explored successfully by other brands, while not putting out the capital on research and development. This means that since less money has gone into the development of the product, it can be marketed far cheaper. The same idea works for any industry with trends over time.
@Slipknotyk06 The example might not be ideal, especially without adding hypothetical financial date to go with it.
But let's say the cereal is 4% profitable. And what do you expect interest rates would be without government intervention in the credit market? Surely not less than 4%. Would investors throw away money in the cereal brand?
A lot of resources are wasted, causing economic loss, in the pursuit of monetary gain.
My point is tangental to this video, though. Off-topic.
@stevemcgee99 That's not a rebuttal to Slipknot's comment unless I misunderstand your disagreement. He is saying that the lack of marketing and R&D costs mean that the average cost/unit is lower, thus allowing for a lower consumer price and higher demand. If you are not borrowing so what if rates rise
However, I agree that interest rates are far too low right now due to govt intervention. Now when rates do rise, Americans will be consuming a lot less so the cereal firm may not do well then haha
@CentristFiascox3 lol you Righties. Always good for a laugh. It's like hearing excited preschoolers contemplate Aristotle; it's clear you just don't get it. It's clear you don't know what Marxism is and that those whom you've surrendered your faculties to have complete control of your thought processes.
One might be tempted to giggle and pat you on the head if you guys weren't so dangerous en masse.
paradox of choice is nonsensical tosh based on questionable research supported by the mentally ill. (Yes, if you have a panic attack every time you enter a grocery store you're mentally ill)
Communists don't want necessarily the best choices to be made for them, they just want to be acted on, to be molded....that is why ANY choice good or bad made for them by another will please them.
Well I build my own computers and while only have a choice between AMD and Intel for CPUs, there's about 50 different motherboard manufacturers but I don't hesitate between choosing 1 of thousands of mobos. Why? Because I have extensive knowledge of each manufacturer; I know which one's to avoid and which ones have good reputations etc. It seem that the stressed involved with making choices is a result of a lack of information to make comparisons, and not the amounted of choices per se.
@siftyfour "the stressed involved with making choices is a result of a lack of information to make comparisons"
Now imagine if a banker, a lawyer, a doctor and a poet made the choice for you and it was a single company for that mother board and picked a "no-name" CPU that burns out all the time but costs 5 times as much. And you had to fill out the proper paper work just to get it. And another person had to install it for you, though you are the expert.
"It would be to place an intolerable burden on regulators ... so great would be this burden there is no reason to believe they would make wise choices on our behalf". I am sympathetic to this argument, but you are making an empirical claim. I have no idea how to measure it either, but none the less arm chair theorizing won't work here.
As for the, knowledge problem, I totally agree. Your argument relies on the knowledge problem, but the previous point is not self evident and requires data
@xchris109x I choose to not trust the argument of someone who can't even handle the stress of shopping in a supermarket... although I really hate the choices of manufactured food in most supermarkets.
Is stress on a large scale actually diminishing economic efficiency though? Would this be more of a sociological issue and at what point to economists start to adopt the paradox as true?
@TheMidwestAtheist Well, let's start with the last part first-what would give assurance a bureaucrat is knowledgeable? Second, does being knowledgeable guarantee benevolence? Third, under what circumstances can a bureaucrat know what is better for ourselves more than us?
@TheMidwestAtheist I'm a libertarian. Choice is not a magical fix all. But it is better than the alternative, which is force, or threat of violence. I'll take the stress of choice over the stress of the threat of violence against me and my family any day. Wouldn't you?
Pennington makes an error: he assumes bureaucrats will have the same stress-causing factors. I think this is an incorrect assumption, as he doesn't address the cause of stress in having a choice. While I don't know any studies off the top of my head to cite, I think lack of knowledge is one of the factors. If (and I realize that can seem like a big "if" as suggested by Pennington) the bureaucrats are knowlegeable on whatever decision they are making, then they should not have as much stress.
@TheMidwestAtheist "he assumes bureaucrats will have the same stress-causing factors. I think this is an incorrect assumption" I agree. Most bureaucrats have a list of criteria and follow it. If there is a question, they send it to somebody else or err on the side of "no" to save their butts... no stress.
The criteria is made by regulators and politicians, who have no fear of reprisals, so no stress. And often no knowledge of the end user's needs.
@TheMidwestAtheist He specifically acknowledges that beaureacrats cannot have the sufficient knowledge.
The argument is that IF choice causes stress, then the choices that regulators would need to make to reduce our choices (to lower our stress) would cause excessive stress.
It's a case of using the justification to regulate and reduce our stress against the justification itself.
@sanitydotorg Simple-minded slogans and self-important piffle: hallmarks of the right wing delusion. It's a shame this channel's intelligent videos are wasted on such uncritical minds.
The real parasites are not "big government" Liberals but the big business you defend: they are the ones that seek subsidies; feed off government contracts; lobby our government; buy our representatives and write our laws.
The Left abhors monopolies. The Right would make us serfs to their corporate masters.
@sidspop I know what corporatism is. Capitalism between individuals - what I call "small town" or local capitalism is a beautiful thing. But history shows again and again that the profit motive compels industry and its captains to seek out the number one customer of all: the state. We need to get back to the original function of the corporate charter as it was in the early 19th century; it was temporary and used only for a public service.
"Oppress to relieve stress"?
what a joke.
Ravengaurd6 1 month ago
@Ravengaurd6 some people actually believe that their lives would be better if a central power limited their choices to a select few approved options. They think too much freedom is a burden to the individual. Of course these people are morons ... but they honestly believe it.
HumbleWillis 3 weeks ago
@HumbleWillis And that's why I pack heat! :)
Ravengaurd6 3 weeks ago
@Ravengaurd6 NICE!
HumbleWillis 3 weeks ago
Does anyone think the government should make our choices?
jaykgrey 1 month ago
Stress is caused by concern for the consequences of the choice being made. Will choosing "A" give me a better result than choosing "B"? It's much easier to make choices for others, especially people I'm not likely to meet, since I'm unlikely to suffer any consequences, good or bad. In fact, I probably won't even KNOW the consequences. I don't want some bureaucrat making any choices for me, thank you.
libertariancfo 1 month ago
Is it fair to say that the libertarian party is a supporter of existentialist ideals? Many of the arguments in these videos have such undertones and I was just curious. Thoughts?
WACHANAxamWACHANA 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
when has government solved the paradox of anything???
halomandrummer 1 month ago 2
... I don't believe the garbage that (for most) choice creates stress. I enjoy choice because it allows individuals to be different. Choice allows me to wear New Rock boots, 5 Finger Death Punch hoodies and tripp pants. I don't want to be a clone. I don't compare my choices negatively against those of others. If they have something better, I have the choice to go out and save up to buy what they have - or better. This whole paradox of choice idea only applies to the very immature and materialist
Slipknotyk06 1 month ago
more mark pennington please! this man is intereting and brilliant!
goPistons06 1 month ago
Can I get an amen?
joeblowunlimited 1 month ago in playlist Featured Shorts
This has been flagged as spam show
I dont buy it. I dont see anyone complain for too much healthcare, or too much education. It is too much war spending that most people could agree on cutting. Nationalize Oil companies to pay for free health care
MAZDAKPRODUCTION 1 month ago in playlist Featured Shorts
Comment removed
MAZDAKPRODUCTION 1 month ago in playlist Featured Shorts
By the way, he is using the nanny government argument that choice causes excessive stress against the nanny government.
stevemcgee99 1 month ago 2
The abundance of choice - especially meaningless choice like in breakfast cereal and other exact same product with a different box, like life insurance, cars, consumer electronics, etc. - is actually caused by government intervention.
With natural interest rates, businesses would not be able to profit from flooding the market with so many similar products. They'd lose money, because it is 'not worth it' to produce items of such low value to consumers. How can we profit as an 8th place cereal?
stevemcgee99 1 month ago
@stevemcgee99 - I honestly don't think this is true. Producing similar items to name brands is profitable. An eighth place cereal can capitalize on trends explored successfully by other brands, while not putting out the capital on research and development. This means that since less money has gone into the development of the product, it can be marketed far cheaper. The same idea works for any industry with trends over time.
Slipknotyk06 1 month ago
@Slipknotyk06 The example might not be ideal, especially without adding hypothetical financial date to go with it.
But let's say the cereal is 4% profitable. And what do you expect interest rates would be without government intervention in the credit market? Surely not less than 4%. Would investors throw away money in the cereal brand?
A lot of resources are wasted, causing economic loss, in the pursuit of monetary gain.
My point is tangental to this video, though. Off-topic.
stevemcgee99 1 month ago
@stevemcgee99 That's not a rebuttal to Slipknot's comment unless I misunderstand your disagreement. He is saying that the lack of marketing and R&D costs mean that the average cost/unit is lower, thus allowing for a lower consumer price and higher demand. If you are not borrowing so what if rates rise
However, I agree that interest rates are far too low right now due to govt intervention. Now when rates do rise, Americans will be consuming a lot less so the cereal firm may not do well then haha
LibertyPanacea 1 month ago
can this speaker use the logical fallacy of a false dilemma , Yes he can !
masluxx 1 month ago in playlist Featured Shorts
You only have to go as far as "Can government solve..." and the answer will always be NO.
furyofbongos 1 month ago
government cant solve anything. just make it worse.
toSTONEiGO 1 month ago
can this guy postulate a flase paradox?
masluxx 1 month ago in playlist Featured Shorts
@CentristFiascox3 lol you Righties. Always good for a laugh. It's like hearing excited preschoolers contemplate Aristotle; it's clear you just don't get it. It's clear you don't know what Marxism is and that those whom you've surrendered your faculties to have complete control of your thought processes.
One might be tempted to giggle and pat you on the head if you guys weren't so dangerous en masse.
gnomechomskylives 1 month ago in playlist Featured Shorts
@gnomechomskylives Explain to me what Marxism is
mikeoli 1 month ago in playlist Featured Shorts
@gnomechomskylives Ad hominems but not any real answers or counter-arguments.
megatherium100 1 month ago
Free will FTW!
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 1 month ago
These academics need to choose another job. Common sense tells that making choices is inevitable
blackbette07 1 month ago in playlist Featured Shorts
paradox of choice is nonsensical tosh based on questionable research supported by the mentally ill. (Yes, if you have a panic attack every time you enter a grocery store you're mentally ill)
Berelore 1 month ago
absolutely great work... keep it up and bring us more!!!
RustyIronloins 1 month ago
more canned BS to feed peoples rationals....
masluxx 1 month ago
Only we can make decisions regarding ourselves. Central planners cannot know what's "best for us", since "best" is an individually subjective term.
AlecTaylor6 1 month ago in playlist Featured Shorts
No everyone feels stress over choice; I want no elected person to make my choice for me, not ever.
vintageozarks 1 month ago
Obama sure looks stressed.
Bleakfacts 1 month ago
Choice is moral.
smartalex1972 1 month ago
Communists don't want necessarily the best choices to be made for them, they just want to be acted on, to be molded....that is why ANY choice good or bad made for them by another will please them.
Armando7654 1 month ago
I LIKE CHOICE SCREW THE GOVERNMENT....
MrStrangeham 1 month ago in playlist Featured Shorts
Well I build my own computers and while only have a choice between AMD and Intel for CPUs, there's about 50 different motherboard manufacturers but I don't hesitate between choosing 1 of thousands of mobos. Why? Because I have extensive knowledge of each manufacturer; I know which one's to avoid and which ones have good reputations etc. It seem that the stressed involved with making choices is a result of a lack of information to make comparisons, and not the amounted of choices per se.
siftyfour 1 month ago
@siftyfour "the stressed involved with making choices is a result of a lack of information to make comparisons"
Now imagine if a banker, a lawyer, a doctor and a poet made the choice for you and it was a single company for that mother board and picked a "no-name" CPU that burns out all the time but costs 5 times as much. And you had to fill out the proper paper work just to get it. And another person had to install it for you, though you are the expert.
That's gov't for you.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
Jefferson once said: "I would rather suffer the inconveniences of too much freedom, than suffer those of having too little."
Mas0o0n 1 month ago 71
"It would be to place an intolerable burden on regulators ... so great would be this burden there is no reason to believe they would make wise choices on our behalf". I am sympathetic to this argument, but you are making an empirical claim. I have no idea how to measure it either, but none the less arm chair theorizing won't work here.
As for the, knowledge problem, I totally agree. Your argument relies on the knowledge problem, but the previous point is not self evident and requires data
ec0n1n0thuman 1 month ago
The choice is up to you.
xchris109x 1 month ago
@xchris109x I choose to not trust the argument of someone who can't even handle the stress of shopping in a supermarket... although I really hate the choices of manufactured food in most supermarkets.
bupkus123 1 month ago
@bupkus123 Then you have the freedom to make the "choice" to buy food somewhere else.
ShamanMcLamie 1 month ago in playlist Featured Shorts
Is stress on a large scale actually diminishing economic efficiency though? Would this be more of a sociological issue and at what point to economists start to adopt the paradox as true?
deanneugebauer 1 month ago
The opposite of choice is force. Threat of violence.
I'll take the stress of having to make my own choices over the stress of the threat of violence against me and my family, thank you very much.
Politicians, bureaucrats, religious leaders and governments SUCK.
freesk8 1 month ago
I love choice!
god0fgod 1 month ago
@TheMidwestAtheist Well, let's start with the last part first-what would give assurance a bureaucrat is knowledgeable? Second, does being knowledgeable guarantee benevolence? Third, under what circumstances can a bureaucrat know what is better for ourselves more than us?
AccumulatedKnowledge 1 month ago
...But to his credit, at least he doesn't treat choice like some magical fix-all solution like some libertarians I know!
TheMidwestAtheist 1 month ago
@TheMidwestAtheist I'm a libertarian. Choice is not a magical fix all. But it is better than the alternative, which is force, or threat of violence. I'll take the stress of choice over the stress of the threat of violence against me and my family any day. Wouldn't you?
freesk8 1 month ago
Pennington makes an error: he assumes bureaucrats will have the same stress-causing factors. I think this is an incorrect assumption, as he doesn't address the cause of stress in having a choice. While I don't know any studies off the top of my head to cite, I think lack of knowledge is one of the factors. If (and I realize that can seem like a big "if" as suggested by Pennington) the bureaucrats are knowlegeable on whatever decision they are making, then they should not have as much stress.
TheMidwestAtheist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheMidwestAtheist "he assumes bureaucrats will have the same stress-causing factors. I think this is an incorrect assumption" I agree. Most bureaucrats have a list of criteria and follow it. If there is a question, they send it to somebody else or err on the side of "no" to save their butts... no stress.
The criteria is made by regulators and politicians, who have no fear of reprisals, so no stress. And often no knowledge of the end user's needs.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo This is not spam.
stevemcgee99 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stevemcgee99 "This is not spam" Huh?
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@TheMidwestAtheist He specifically acknowledges that beaureacrats cannot have the sufficient knowledge.
The argument is that IF choice causes stress, then the choices that regulators would need to make to reduce our choices (to lower our stress) would cause excessive stress.
It's a case of using the justification to regulate and reduce our stress against the justification itself.
stevemcgee99 1 month ago
dear daddy, please protect me from responsibility.
sanitydotorg 1 month ago in playlist Featured Shorts 41
@sanitydotorg Simple-minded slogans and self-important piffle: hallmarks of the right wing delusion. It's a shame this channel's intelligent videos are wasted on such uncritical minds.
The real parasites are not "big government" Liberals but the big business you defend: they are the ones that seek subsidies; feed off government contracts; lobby our government; buy our representatives and write our laws.
The Left abhors monopolies. The Right would make us serfs to their corporate masters.
gnomechomskylives 1 month ago in playlist Featured Shorts
@gnomechomskylives You're so confused. Google corporatism.
sidspop 1 month ago
@sidspop I know what corporatism is. Capitalism between individuals - what I call "small town" or local capitalism is a beautiful thing. But history shows again and again that the profit motive compels industry and its captains to seek out the number one customer of all: the state. We need to get back to the original function of the corporate charter as it was in the early 19th century; it was temporary and used only for a public service.
gnomechomskylives 1 month ago
@gnomechomskylives ...or simply remove that demonic consumer, the State.
N7a7v7i 1 month ago
@N7a7v7i There will always be a "market" for the state; therefore anarchism is self-defeating.
gnomechomskylives 1 month ago
lets not forget when people make bad choices in bad faith, so they can turn public spending in personal gain.
rapzeh4 1 month ago