Laissez-faire In Fool's World

[tommyedison]

Can laissez-faire capitalism work and be economically the most efficient compared to other systems in a world where majority of the people do not think and/or are profoundly irrational?

[Charlotte Corday]

Can laissez-faire capitalism work and be economically the most efficient compared to other systems in a world where majority of the people do not think and/or are profoundly irrational?

It would, of course, depend on the degree of irrationality we are dealing with. In his writings, Ludwig von Mises has demonstrated that as long as people prefer life to death, health to sickness, and prosperity to poverty, capitalism is the most efficient of all economic systems. On the other hand, if one believes that exisitng as a primitive hunter-gatherer is man's true calling, the best attributes of capitalism (money, international trade, the division of labor, the accumulation of capital) will hold little appeal. However, there's little reason to suppose that a passion for primitivism will sweep the world. I have heard people extoll the noble savage, but have yet to observe anyone actually living that existence for any length of time. Furthermore, when I have visited the Third World, the overwhelming majority of people I encounter there want to live like Americans.

[Bowzer]

The question shouldn't be about "efficiency" or "how well it works," but about which system is the moral system. The answer to this question is not dependent on other people's rationality or irrationality. Once you understand this, you will see why it is that capitalism works while other systems don't. The moral is the practical.

[BurgessLau]

Can laissez-faire capitalism work and be economically the most efficient compared to other systems in a world where majority of the people do not think and/or are profoundly irrational?

Are you saying that you believe that the majority of the people in the world are "profoundly irrational"?

If so, what is your evidence?

If not, what is the point of your question?

[tommyedison]

Are you saying that you believe that the majority of the people in the world are "profoundly irrational"?

If so, what is your evidence?

If not, what is the point of your question?

I do believe that the majority of the people are irrational. Consider the majority of the Muslims. They are out to destroy the West. Some of them even hold demonstrations extolling Osama Bin Laden like in Pakistan. The Christians hold faith and self-sacrifice to be a moral ideal. Many Arabs like in Iraq act like savages. Most of the modern teenagers are already a degenerated lot.

[BurgessLau]

I do believe that the majority of the people are irrational. Consider the majority of the Muslims. They are out to destroy the West. Some of them even hold demonstrations extolling Osama Bin Laden like in Pakistan. The Christians hold faith and self-sacrifice to be a moral ideal. Many Arabs like in Iraq act like savages. Most of the modern teenagers are already a degenerated lot.

Thank you for your answer. I think we are making progress -- at least in clarifying the essential question.

I see now that my first question should have been:

What do you mean by "irrational"?

[BlackSabbath]

Can laissez-faire capitalism work and be economically the most efficient compared to other systems in a world where majority of the people do not think and/or are profoundly irrational?

What other system can 'work' if not laissez-faire capitalism?

[Capitalism Forever]

Can laissez-faire capitalism work and be economically the most efficient compared to other systems in a world where majority of the people do not think and/or are profoundly irrational?

For those who don't think, nothing works.

[tommyedison]

Thank you for your answer. I think we are making progress -- at least in clarifying the essential question.

I see now that my first question should have been:

What do you mean by "irrational"?

Irrational:- An idea or concept not based on reason.

and

The attribute of a person who accepts such ideas

My point is that laissez-faire is a system made for moral and thinking men. I can't imagine laissez-faire in the present world.

[TetrisGod]

My point is that laissez-faire is a system made for moral and thinking men. I can't imagine laissez-faire in the present world

Well, I definitely don't see the alternative working

[BurgessLau]

Irrational:- An idea or concept not based on reason.

                                  and

                 The attribute of a person who accepts such ideas

My point is that laissez-faire is a system made for moral and thinking men. I can't imagine laissez-faire in the present world.

I see several related but separable issues here. Let's take your last comment first.

I agree, if this is what you are saying, that in the present world a laissez-faire government is impossible anywhere.

The key question is why. My answer is because of mixed philosophy. Each individual -- for example, in the U. S. A. -- has an actual philosophy (the implicit principles which cause his actions) and a stated philosophy (the explicit principles he says he supports, even if he otherwise doesn't act on them). Most bedrock individuals have a much more objective actual philosophy than their stated philosophy would initially indicate.

By "bedrock" I mean the people -- whether conservative or liberal -- who actually get the work of the world done: operating farms, writing books on history, designing new computers, arresting criminals, fixing car motors, and so forth. Innovators set new directions, but the bedrock people (like Mike the construction worker in The Fountainhead) implement them.

Such people are not "profoundly" (fundamentally) irrational -- that is, they do not reject man's means of survival, reason, "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses." (AR Lexicon, p. 407) They do accept a lot of bad ideas -- outside their specialization, but that is not their primary responsibility. It is the responsibility of intellectuals to develop broad ideas.

The overlap of objective actual philosophy with nonobjective stated philosophy varies enormously from one individual to another. Perhaps there is a sort of "Bell Curve" throughout a society, leaning one way or the other as time passes.

Keep in mind that there is a difference between holding nonobjective ideas (through error or lack of time to validate them) and being irrational, which is a decision to reject reason. They are not the same at all.

To create a laissez-faire society initially requires arming only about 1% of the population, that is, about half the intellectuals. I believe we are about two philosophical generations away from doing that -- if all continues to go well. But, you are right, at present, we can't set up and run such a society.

Once a better society is set up -- even if by a minority, as after the American Revolution -- it can continue to run even if many individuals in it are irrational in varying degrees and in varying compartments of their life.