Why is it so hard to be a part-time bank teller (or to get any job)?

[DaShi]

Uh...no. How many hours does "th government" spend thinking about what I want?

An absurd amount. In fact, the gov spends a lot of money just to figure out what you want.

[KrazyHorse]

People who are 55 can still be quite productive. They don't have to become drags on society.

If they have saved up the money... they can spend it on what they wish.

JM

They don't; they spend my ****ing money on it.

[KrazyHorse]

An absurd amount. In fact, the gov spends a lot of money just to figure out what you want.

No it doesn't, dude.

There are 300 million people in the US. Don't be ****ing ridiculous.

Not to mention the fact that no government employe has ever asked me what I want. And by insulating themselves from price signals and only responding to weak aggregated signals like votes, they don't have a ****ing clue what I want.

[Hauldren Collider]

Everyone has their own idea about what people ought to want, and almost nobody thinks that someone else could make a better decision than them about what they want. Therefore the only logical conclusion is to allow people to get what they want and not make decisions for them. The obvious thing to notice about this is that if everyone just buys what they want and leaves other people alone, they improve their own happiness and have zero risk of reducing the happiness of other people.

Yes, this is an Objectivist (Ayn Rand-esque) viewpoint, but this is a case where Ayn Rand was clearly right.

[DaShi]

Seriously? That's the direction you want to take this?

[KrazyHorse]

KH isn't anything as moral or socially-minded as a drug dealer. He works for Goldman Sachs.

Too easy. You made a similar joke like a day ago.

[DaShi]

Everyone has their own idea about what people ought to want, and almost nobody thinks that someone else could make a better decision than them about what they want. Therefore the only logical conclusion is to allow people to get what they want and not make decisions for them.

The first part is correct, but the second one doesn't follow.

[KrazyHorse]

Seriously? That's the direction you want to take this?

Uh, yeah. Come on, you ridiculous person. How much do they spend on polls, focus groups etc? Divide by 300 million. How much time did they spend on ME?

[KrazyHorse]

The government:

1) Doesn't have the resources to decide what people want better than they do for themselves
2) Doesn't have the incentives to do so (and act on this knowledge)

The thought that either of those statements is wrong is blatantly absurd.

[Hauldren Collider]

The first part is correct, but the second one doesn't follow.

There's the unstated truism that no one has any legitimate claim to being the fountain of wisdom capable of deciding all our lives for us.

[Hauldren Collider]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't thinking that a single person (or small group of people) would be the ideal place to make the personal decisions for an entire population literally make you a communist? Or just a totalitarian?

[KrazyHorse]

It is probably true that the vast majority of people who take recreational drugs enjoy themselves without doing themselves or anyone else any significant harm. Yes, there are certainly casualties, but I expect this is a very small percentage of the entire set of users of recreational pharmaceuticals.

I think that if we want to explore the idea that wealth gained != value provided in certain cases then other examples might be more suitable. I have certainly experienced many instances of people being either over-paid or under-paid. The market is always right in theory, but not necessarily in practice.

There are always uncertainties and informational asymmetries. My point is simply that people are incentivized AND have much better "particular knowledge of time and place" than any central authority could ever have in order to make good decisions.

[DaShi]

Just saying it is absurd does not convince me. Especially given how people make many self-destructive decisions due to poor knowledge and incentives that promote short term gains over long term ones. Then there's the fact that many people will just make decisions based on what they see everyone else doing, not on personal value.

The government isn't a perfect decision-maker, and I don't believe that it should be making all decisions for people. But in some circumstances, it does need to regulate people to ensure that they don't make decisions that are destructive to themselves and others.

[DaShi]

There are always uncertainties and informational asymmetries. My point is simply that people are incentivized AND have much better "particular knowledge of time and place" than any central authority could ever have in order to make good decisions.

Nonsense, game theory was devised to demonstrate that this can be inherently wrong for many decisions.

[KrazyHorse]

Just saying it is absurd does not convince me.

If yu thought about it for a few minutes it should.

Especially given how people make many self-destructive decisions due to poor knowledge and incentives that promote short term gains over long term ones.

Short term gains outweigh long-term ones. That's why there is a discount factor (yet another individual choice which I can't make for other people).

Then there's the fact that many people will just make decisions based on what they see everyone else doing, not on personal value.

So instead of this you think the gov should be telling people to all do the same thing because IT thinks they should? Holy ****, you're substituting an externally-enforced uniformity for self-determined value in mimicry.

The government isn't a perfect decision-maker, and I don't believe that it should be making all decisions for people.

Why not? You've already explained how they make better decisions for people than they themselves do. Why not carry this to its logical conclusion?

But in some circumstances, it does need to regulate people to ensure that they don't make decisions that are destructive to themselves and others.

Stop trying to conflate costs individuals can impose upon others with the costs they impose on themselves.