But that is not how litterally every other human being defines rationality.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
But that is not how litterally every other human being defines rationality.
At least someone can still write responses, it is better for a debate than simply writing 'lol didn't read your post'.
Markets are pretty simple, you have demand for services, and then there are people offering services and goods. Those who meet the demand of the customers best, gain the most and those who try to sell sand in Sahara, well make less profit?
Yes, some people are born into wealthier families, but that is nothing bad. What matters is that however rich or poor the parents, the childs of everyone will have equal rights to compete against each other in meeting the demands of the consumers.
Since humans are different, we are bound to have some inequality always amongst us, we simply have to keep the game as fair as possible without limiting the chances of gaining welfare for anyone.
No one is 'left behind', others simply move forwards faster and there is no reason the state should hold them back, for that would decrease their liberties and chances to freedom, something that is not fair nor just.
A feudal system is a quite heavily regulated system.
Less regulation means more chances to prosper, for everyone. Also, still no one forces anyone to work. You are always free to switch employer in a free society.The gifted individuals should be left to prosper, for their prosperity will also increase the prosperity of others in a free society. A genius who invents something new is bound to increase the benefits of others thanks to the innovation of a new idea or product.
While a safety net sounds cool and 'just', it is not free, for money does not grow in trees. Instead of stealing from others, we shall simply offer the best chances for everyone to prosper under equal rights before the law.
The state should never limit the chances of individuals to prosper, for such is tyranny and requires the violation of liberties of the individual.
The market forces are simply supply meeting demand. Those that serve the consumers better, profit from such. Those that seek to sell snow in Antarctic, prosper less.
Limiting the acting of common men requires state action, and such action is by nature bound to hurt the freedoms of the common men. It will only result in tyranny if such were to be allowed.
The more people are allowed to prosper, the more prosperity it will bring to everyone.
And I'm talking about rational economic behaviour, not sure what you are talking about? People make rational choices in their economic choices, based on emotions, logic and so on. Different people have different rationales behind their choices.
Oh, we're cool. Someday I just wish that Enewald would put his own real life politics aside in one of these AARs though, at least for the first few updates. These sorts of AARs always get a little boring when people judge period actions based on contemporary principles.
Why can't we have a Gaullist-style party here in the UK?!
I'm voting for the Conservative Party!
I'm voting for the Conservative Party!
((It's great isn't it? I would imagine this is something a coffee shop for hipsters would use for their menu or something.))
((Why can't we have a Pierre Lagaillarde or Jacques Massu of our own, is my question.))Why can't we have a Gaullist-style party here in the UK?!
Oh, we're cool. Someday I just wish that Enewald would put his own real life politics aside in one of these AARs though, at least for the first few updates. These sorts of AARs always get a little boring when people judge period actions based on contemporary principles.
Hear, hear! I motion that all posts about the free market and how it's the only true form of basically everything be banned!
Also, I don't really need to say this, but I vote for the Liberal Party. (And pray God we don't align ourselves with Bevan...)
~The Rt. Hon. DensleyBlair, PC, MP for North Norfolk, Viscount Blair of Dunny-on-the-Wold
I think that your definition of a market is a huge abstraction – in particular it makes no reference to the issue of market access.
Were that definition true, person A would merely have to have the best idea for a product and it would lead to him or her being rewarded. In reality, many people lack the resource to devote time to generating these ideas. Some people simply cannot become entrepreneurs in this country, living as they do one week to the next reliant on their low wages to make ends meet.
But it goes much further than that; we are not simply talking about someone inventing something special. In this country we have a system of elite schools and universities, who are far less accessible to people of the lower economic classes. Some bursaries exist, but not enough, and patronage remains incredibly important. Having a degree from this institutions lends weight to every application that persona makes in future, giving them a significant advantage.
When people apply for jobs in this country, they are not simply evaluated on their merits; who referred them, who they know, and where they studied all remain incredibly important.
While all these distortions exist, there needs to be some countervailing force which will seek to ‘smooth’ the inequalities. That means clipping the winds of those who would fly the highest, in order to ensure that those at the bottom are not entirely abandoned.
You say that a successful person should never be held back – but I disagree. At some point, that persons success has been at the expense of others; legitimately in cases where that person worked harder, had the better idea etc, but also illegitimately where that person knew someone in the office, used a network to bring his product to market quicker, had a benefactor bestow patronage which secured a look in for his article…
There are such a vast number of influences which determine the success of failure of a person throughout their lifetime, and regrettably a large number of these are neither due to rational decisions by the agent, nor due to being more deserving.
Pure liberals have no answer for how these market deficiencies are to be addressed – but plenty of answers as to how market deficiencies introduced by the government will be removed. Doing so would merely make these first set of deficiencies all the more potent. It is the road to oligarchy.
Were that definition true, person A would merely have to have the best idea for a product and it would lead to him or her being rewarded. In reality, many people lack the resource to devote time to generating these ideas. Some people simply cannot become entrepreneurs in this country, living as they do one week to the next reliant on their low wages to make ends meet.
But it goes much further than that; we are not simply talking about someone inventing something special. In this country we have a system of elite schools and universities, who are far less accessible to people of the lower economic classes. Some bursaries exist, but not enough, and patronage remains incredibly important. Having a degree from this institutions lends weight to every application that persona makes in future, giving them a significant advantage.
When people apply for jobs in this country, they are not simply evaluated on their merits; who referred them, who they know, and where they studied all remain incredibly important.
While all these distortions exist, there needs to be some countervailing force which will seek to ‘smooth’ the inequalities. That means clipping the winds of those who would fly the highest, in order to ensure that those at the bottom are not entirely abandoned.
You say that a successful person should never be held back – but I disagree. At some point, that persons success has been at the expense of others; legitimately in cases where that person worked harder, had the better idea etc, but also illegitimately where that person knew someone in the office, used a network to bring his product to market quicker, had a benefactor bestow patronage which secured a look in for his article…
There are such a vast number of influences which determine the success of failure of a person throughout their lifetime, and regrettably a large number of these are neither due to rational decisions by the agent, nor due to being more deserving.
Pure liberals have no answer for how these market deficiencies are to be addressed – but plenty of answers as to how market deficiencies introduced by the government will be removed. Doing so would merely make these first set of deficiencies all the more potent. It is the road to oligarchy.
This
Oh, we're cool. Someday I just wish that Enewald would put his own real life politics aside in one of these AARs though, at least for the first few updates. These sorts of AARs always get a little boring when people judge period actions based on contemporary principles.
Whit is thes contemporary 'at ye said, eh?
(What is this contemporary that you said, eh?)
Why can't we have a Gaullist-style party here in the UK?!
Just wait a little while longer...
*sniff*
Ye make me a prood Scot reit noo.
Also, welcome to all new Liberal voters! Your wigs will be dispatched shortly.
Or honourary FREEDOM! tartan.
You the term in its philosophical meaning, and I in the economic meaning of rationally behaving consumers.
While almost the same, there is a huge difference when it comes to describing economic behaviour, since everyone is out there to maximize their own benefit according to their own rationale; thus every consumer is a rational customer with rational thought justifying their every decisions, even if it differs between unique individuals.
Emotions are something that affects economic rationale, just like logic, needs, desires and wishes are.
Peoples economic decisions are stupid stop assuming there good a priori as a axiom.
- Status