reply on: Praxeology and Robert Malone’s "Surveillance Capitalism" \ stacker news ~econ

pull down to refresh

71 sats \ 2 replies \ @SimpleStacker 3 Sep \ on: Praxeology and Robert Malone’s "Surveillance Capitalism" econ

Given the voluntariness of persuasion, we must reframe the key “psywar” questions as: why have so many people become so gullible and so unconcerned about their own privacy in the age of social media? Why, in the new social media world of compromised privacy, has it become so much easier to influence people into accepting new beliefs and values that are contrary to their own rational self-interest?

It is still up to each individual actor to take an active role in continually improving their own beliefs and evaluative principles, always honing their generation of ex ante utility scales to better optimize their ex post experiences of satisfaction. The ultimate responsibility for guarding against deception and manipulation and for achieving such personal moral progress rests with each individual. First, one must understand and cherish open, rational discourse and selective disclosures of personal information before markets can properly align information flows to one’s needs.

To summarize, the libertarian solution is the self-betterment of the individual.

While I agree with that in theory, I am not optimistic that the common man will learn to "understand and cherish open, rational discourse" and "take an active role in continually improving their own beliefs and evaluative principles."

So, my question to libertarians is: What should I do if I agree with libertarian ethics generally, but I don't trust such ethics to create an outcome that actually improves my own utility?

By the way, I am not advocating for more social control over the information process. I am still open to the idea that the libertarian approach is the best of all feasible outcomes; I am just not confident that it achieves anything close to my own first-best.

77 sats \ 0 replies \ @didiplaywell 4 Sep

To summarize, the libertarian solution is the self-betterment of the individual.

That's half correct. Libertarianism claims that its scheme will, on average, lead to the self-betterment of the individual, but it do not tries to force that on each individual, rather, it leaves to each individual to either enjoy or suffer the consequences of their actions, which on average will lead to most men to get better, not all. Libertarianism is "liquidationist" both in economical and social terms.

I am not optimistic that the common man will learn to "understand and cherish open, rational discourse" and "take an active role in continually improving their own beliefs and evaluative principles."

Libertarianism tells you that you don't have to be. Be mindful that any other option implies to trust decisions to centralized authority. Even in democracy that implies that you are trusting the decisions of the many in a few, so those who are not trusted to take their own decisions are trusted to decide who will take all decisions for them. It's an oxymoron. Libertarianism ends all of that nonsense and leaves every men to pay the price of either their wit or their folly. Even if that implies most men will fail to their folly, it will still be better than any other scheme which can only lead to all men to fall in such circumstance.

It's not a matter of absolutes, it's a matter of averages, robustness and overall outcome.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 3 Sep

I usually approach these things comparatively, as opposed to absolutely, and that usually starts with evaluating the incentives.

In a libertarian society, each individual keeps their gains and suffers their losses. That increases the opportunity cost of holding wrong views, compared to a society that taxes gains and subsidizes losses. So, you'd expect people in a libertarian society to be more critical and less gullible. Those effects would ripple through the entire information economy, since there would be reduced profits for propagandists and greater for honest prognosticators.

What should I do if I agree with libertarian ethics generally, but I don't trust such ethics to create an outcome that actually improves my own utility?

It depends. I've always said that I would rather live in a just (i.e. libertarian) society than the one that's most personally profitable. However, I generally recommend doing what's best for your family, as long as you're not directly victimizing people in the process. It's not like either of us get to choose whether we get to live in libertarianism or not.