--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Wraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >On Monday 25 December 2006 11:29, Wraith was heard to say: > > > > > > > Public Choice Theory is certainly interesting...But using > > > > > > > "rational" and "public" in the same sentence is ironic, at > >the > > > > > > > very least... > > > > > > > > > Its inherent in Public Choice Theory. > > > > > > > >Just because you do not believe the actions to be rational, does > >not > > > >mean that the motivations of the actors themselves in that > > > >environment do not make the commition of those seemingly > >irrational > > > >actions seem perfectly right. > > > > > > Seem, being the key word here. Government in its own fashion, is > > > just as much a creature of belief, as religion is...With all of > >the > > > implications. > > > > > > >Most of the people on this list would refuse an order to kill, for > > > >instance, but there are many people who consider obeying such an > > > >order to be completely rational and the refusal to be irrational. > > > > > > Delusion is inherently dangerous...Not only to the deluded, but to > > > those around them. Actions have to be taken within their context, > > > and also guided by principle. The primary principle of > >libertarianism > > > is the ZAP. > > > >Public Choice theory, like all economic theories, uses the > >term "rational" to mean something different than what you do. > >Rational in economics means that an economic actor will react to > >external stimuli in the manner that the actor believes will best > >further his personal preferences and gain for him the most > >enjoyment, economic or otherwise. > > I'm rather familiar with how economics uses the word rational. But this > discussion hasn't been confined exclusively to that field. That is why > I stated(above) that actions have to be taken in context, and guided by > principle. Speaking of economics, have you studied Austrian(Von Mise, > Rothbard)? That produces a much more contextual and clear image of > transactions(not to mention the consequences of State intervention).
I am quite familiar with the Austrian School, having studied for my masters under two Austrian professors. I noted that the discussion was not confined to the economic realm, but each of you was using the term "rational" to mean different things, so I wanted to point that out. > >For example, a bureaucrat will _not_ try to economize on costs, nor > >be efficient. To the contrary, he will try to expand his spending > >and/or purview (empire-building, in the vernacular). This action > >will have the best chance of gaining him more money and power. > >Therefore, it is quite "rational," to _him_. It would strike someone > >in the private sector as irrational, because that person has an > >entirely different set of action-reward scenarios. Most people are > >only guided by the principle of getting everything but caught. That > >is immoral to a libertarian (or anyone with a conscience, IMO), but > >in present-day America, it is _not_ irrational, in the above sense > >of the word. > > As I stated...Context and principle must be used. Other wise, not only > does confusion reign, but we also end up in the sorry situation that we find > ourselves in. One wit once said that humans are rationalizing, not rational > creatures... ^^ > The quote from Heinlein was, "Man is not a rational animal, man is a rationalizing animal." True then, true now. > >As much as we would like it to be a "natural law," the ZAP is still > >considered exotic and unworkable by most people. Hell, I've talked > >to people that like to claim that they are libertarians who don't > >like the ZAP, and look at me strangely when I try (more or less > >politely, depending) to tell them that they are most definitely not > >a libertarian if they reject the ZAP. What's worse, few of them will > >ever have another conversation with me again, because they don't > >like having their bubble burst. And they still proclaim themselves > >to be libertarians. I don't even consider those to be LINOs; poseurs > >comes close, but doesn't quite give me the flavor of insult I wish > >to use on them. But I have digressed. > > The ZAP is the central principle of libertarianism, from which all else > naturally flows. I'm not at all interested in rationalizations. Those who > abide by it are libertarians. Those who do not, are not. One might say > that those who do not understand this are..."Not even wrong". Agreed. But I also think it is important to understand why they are doing that, because they may be educable once a starting point is established. Admittedly, I have only managed this twice in 20 years. > >Most often, disagreements such as this are from people having > >different definitions for the same term. Unfortunately, in English > >the same word can mean different things depending on the context and > >whether it is being used as a technical term (as in the economic > >term rational) or a normative judgement (as in, "You're insane and > >evil, you irrational bastard!"). > > > >Chris C. > > I personally do not care what rationalizations/justifications the Dear Leaders > of the masses may come up with...Nor do I care what delusions the masses > inflict on themselves and each other. My life is guided by my > principles, one of > which is the ZAP. One has only to look around to see the results of actions > taken other wise. > WE cannot change those that have the powerful desire to rule others, except by the final solution. The masses can be changed over time by powerful ideas, presented in the right way. That is our challenge. Chris C.
