Ayn Rand Philosophy, Objectivism, Science, Self-interest

[CoccoBill]

It's more like this: one of the most foundational theories of economics -- rational choice theory -- says that aggregate social behavior results from the behavior of individual actors.

From this emerges the reasoning that nobody has the level of expertise on your personal decisions like you do; therefore it is you who should make your decisions and bear the results. This same paradigm works at all levels, including families, businesses, and communities. Expertise and wisdom of crowds are of the utmost importance to society, but mandates and regulations dished out by a handful of bureaucrats to the enormous quantities of masses is not an effective way to engage them.

Keep in mind that those with expertise on economics are intense proponents of free markets, and that bureaucrats do not have enough expertise to command trillions of decisions from above.

Each individual most likely knows best what his goals are, my point is he often doesn't know how to get there. Also, I'm not convinced that setting "policies" (whether through regulations or dynamically through free markets) for each individual based on their unique preferences is better for the society as a whole than setting them with collective goals in mind. Free market may be more effective, but it doesn't ensure movement in the right direction, collectively speaking.

[wufwugy]

Each individual most likely knows best what his goals are, my point is he often doesn't know how to get there. Also, I'm not convinced that setting "policies" (whether through regulations or dynamically through free markets) for each individual based on their unique preferences is better for the society as a whole than setting them with collective goals in mind. Free market may be more effective, but it doesn't ensure movement in the right direction, collectively speaking.

Who are these angels that can ensure movement in the right direction?

[CoccoBill]

Who are these angels that can ensure movement in the right direction?

No one. Figuring out the right path and the correct steps to get there is science. I far trust the collective human knowledge and understanding here over individuals.

[wufwugy]

No one. Figuring out the right path and the correct steps to get there is science. I far trust the collective human knowledge and understanding here over individuals.

Do you find it ironic that science is fundamentally free market?

Since you do not want individuals with too much power, why do you support a system that explicitly requires a set of individuals having too much power?

Is there room for a different system, one that has demonstrated uncountable times over, that it engages human knowledge and understanding better than any others yet tried?

[CoccoBill]

Do you find it ironic that science is fundamentally free market?

Since you do not want individuals with too much power, why do you support a system that explicitly requires a set of individuals having too much power?

Science is a method, not an economic or political system, I think your analogy is misplaced.

I'm not sure I think members of government have too much power. Some exceptions may exist. No one should have too much power, but some people should have more power than others.

[wufwugy]

Science is a method, not an economic or political system, I think your analogy is misplaced.

Why is it that free market principles are required to ensure the integrity and robustness of science yet not economics or politics (especially since economics and politics are sciences)? What is special about government that keeps those who have its power from needing to be challenged?

I'm not sure I think members of government have too much power. Some exceptions may exist. No one should have too much power, but some people should have more power than others.

Many members of government have significantly more power than any members of private enterprise. If what you want is more human knowledge and less rule by individual decree, how does supporting monopoly power and opposing competition amongst the people do that?

[CoccoBill]

Why is it that free market principles are required to ensure the integrity and robustness of science yet not economics or politics (especially since economics and politics are sciences)? What is special about government that keeps those who have its power from needing to be challenged?

Which principles are these exactly? A government certainly needs a way to keep those in power in check, CoccoBillistan would probably be either ruled by a benevolent informed dictator (me), or have much stricter rules on re-elections, oversight ans transparency as current governments. The priorities get skewed if there are career politicians more interested in getting re-elected than doing their job, and external influence (campaign finance etc) should be weeded out, for example. New employees are great for companies because they bring experience and fresh ideas, but that effect is typically exhausted in a few years. After that it's better they find a new job and a fresh recruit replaces him. Same should happen in the government, if representatives and senators served say max 4 years, they might even have an incentive to get shit done.

Many members of government have significantly more power than any members of private enterprise. If what you want is more human knowledge and less rule by individual decree, how does supporting monopoly power and opposing competition amongst the people do that?

That's debatable, the Kochs for example probably wield effective power quite similar to top brass in government. Without a government they would be the de facto government. POTUS is probably a fairly big exception, but the POTUS has significantly more relative power than his colleagues in other countries. I'm in no way against individual freedom, quite the contrary, I have fairly libertarian views when it comes to regulating individuals. If someone's actions affect only themselves they should be free to do as they please, but if they affect others, regulations are IMO needed.