"Don't You See? It Just Stands to Reason that..."

[Sunstone]

It seems to me that some pretty influential political "truths" these days are based on thin air. They are no more established truths than any mere speculation is.

But they do fool a whole lot of people. And I think the chief reason they fool so many good folks is because they are logical -- or at least close enough to being logical that folks are fooled by them.

The key here is to grasp that something can be logical without being true. I think a good example of that is Public Choice Theory. Most folks might be familiar with the popular notion that all government officials are only interested in serving their own interests, and have no real interest in serving the interests of the people in general. That notion is basically the popularized version of Public Choice Theory.

The theory was cooked up by James McGill Buchanan, who was a right wing libertarian. Buchanan was also an economist, and he came up with his theory by applying some questionable assumptions about human nature (e.g. humans always act rationally to optimize their own selfish interests) to the subject of how government officials behave.

It's curious to me how so many folks will criticize all economics as remarkably out of line with reality, but still swallow Public Choice Theory (at least in its popular versions) as obviously true.

Not only did Buchanan never once do an empirical study to discover whether his theory had any real merit, but even to this day no significant amount of science has been done to either support or test it. The idea that governments act only in their own interests, but never in the interests of the people, remains mere speculation.

You might think a guy as bright as Buchanan would see how simply assuming things are facts, without bothering to check if they actually are facts, is more or less stupid.

But apparently he didn't see that. He even founded a whole school of economists who became notorious for refusing to check their theories against reality. In my opinion, they are so out of touch with reality that by now they should have gone out of business. Unfortunately, they are well funded by a handful of billionaires who seem to like how their theories can be used to persuade people to do things like privatize social security -- which would be a profitable windfall to the billionaires.

What influential political ideas do you yourself see as neither supported by nor tested against reality?

 

[exchemist]

It seems to me that some pretty influential political "truths" these days are based on thin air. They are no more established truths than any mere speculation is.

But they do fool a whole lot of people. And I think the chief reason they fool so many good folks is because they are logical -- or at least close enough to being logical that folks are fooled by them.

The key here is to grasp that something can be logical without being true. I think a good example of that is Public Choice Theory. Most folks might be familiar with the popular notion that all government officials are only interested in serving their own interests, and have no real interest in serving the interests of the people in general. That notion is basically the popularized version of Public Choice Theory.

The theory was cooked up by James McGill Buchanan, who was a right wing libertarian. Buchanan was also an economist, and he came up with his theory by applying some questionable assumptions about human nature (e.g. humans always act rationally to optimize their own selfish interests) to the subject of how government officials behave.

It's curious to me how so many folks will criticize all economics as remarkably out of line with reality, but still swallow Public Choice Theory (at least in its popular versions) as obviously true.

Not only did Buchanan never once do an empirical study to discover whether his theory had any real merit, but even to this day no significant amount of science has been done to either support or test it. The idea that governments act only in their own interests, but never in the interests of the people, remains mere speculation.

You might think a guy as bright as Buchanan would see how simply assuming things are facts, without bothering to check if they actually are facts, is more or less stupid.

But apparently he didn't see that. He even founded a whole school of economists who became notorious for refusing to check their theories against reality. In my opinion, they are so out of touch with reality that by now they should have gone out of business. Unfortunately, they are well funded by a handful of billionaires who seem to like how their theories can be used to persuade people to do things like privatize social security -- which would be a profitable windfall to the billionaires.

What influential political ideas do you yourself see as neither supported by nor tested against reality?

The idea of the state "withering away", in Marxist theory, as developed by Engels.

 

[james blunt]

The key here is to grasp that something can be logical without being true. I think a good example of that is Public Choice Theory. Most folks might be familiar with the popular notion that all government officials are only interested in serving their own interests, and have no real interest in serving the interests of the people in general. That notion is basically the popularized version of Public Choice Theory.

The key here is to establish which world leaders understand the best interests of people compared to the best interests of the machine. World leaders mean to do well, but in my opinion greasing the machine is not important when the machine has no moving parts , a sort of vault that just sits there doing nothing. Now a good leader in my opinion would not care if the machine had any grease, because the grease cannot be ate , will not keep you warm and will not fix a broken leg. That is done by the grease monkeys , who don't really need grease.
So they do have good intentions , good ideas, but they think to much about the machine that does not need grease to survive .
You know they think the grease and machine is the most important thing.

 

[joe1776]

What influential political ideas do you yourself see as neither supported by nor tested against reality?

The only influential political ideas that I can think of have failed or are in the process of failing: democracy, for example.

As for Public Choice Theory, isn't the idea that all of us are selfish creatures who will act only in our own best interests, the founding principle of all Right Wing thinking?

 

[Quintessence]

From what I understand, trickle-down economics is a demonstrably failed idea yet still supported by Republican legislators. That suggests two things: (1) these Republicans are ignorant of this fact, and/or (2) they are in denial of this fact because they choose to serve corporate interests, not the American people as a whole.

 

[Quetzal]

From what I understand, trickle-down economics is a demonstrably failed idea yet still supported by Republican legislators. That suggests two things: (1) these Republicans are ignorant of this fact, and/or (2) they are in denial of this fact because they choose to serve corporate interests, not the American people as a whole.

I believe the latter is the correct answer.

 

[Nakosis]

What influential political ideas do you yourself see as neither supported by nor tested against reality?

I'd suspect the reason that these political ideas are readily accepted is that they are supported by anecdotal evidence. Of course it's not reliable but in lieu of verified studies, anecdotal evidence is what most people fall back on.

The difficult thing is once it has been accepted as true and supported by anecdotal evidence people are generally vary stubborn about clinging to this ideas. Reality is also a bit malleable in that is people believe something is true, act/make choices as if it were true, reality tends to wrap itself around concepts pushed by so many people.

My view is that an entity, like a government will seek its own survival. I understand not all politicians put their own interests before the public interests. However our government system seems geared towards supporting those politicians who keep their own interests at the forefront, such that politicians which do not generally do not stay viable.

Capitalism assumes that folks will look out for their own best interests. Democracy assumes people will look out for their own best interests. This IMO would actually be fine if everyone was on a level playing field. Unfortunately not everyone is

 

[exchemist]

The only influential political ideas that I can think of have failed or are in the process of failing: democracy, for example.

As for Public Choice Theory, isn't the idea that all of us are selfish creatures who will act only in our own best interests, the founding principle of all Right Wing thinking?

No, not a bit of it, though in recent years one might be excused for thinking so. Traditional conservatism has little or nothing to do with laissez-faire market economics, which used to be associated more with liberalism until the mid c.20th. Traditional conservatism stressed tradition, religion and the maintenance of existing social hierarchies.

Or that at least is my understanding. I suppose economic liberalism was adopted by the right once socialism arose and put forward an economic model of state control.

 

[sun rise]

It seems to me that some pretty influential political "truths" these days are based on thin air. They are no more established truths than any mere speculation is.

There are a number of so-called truths that actually ignore evidence. Tax cuts leading to economic growth is one of them - especially as practiced in the USA which is accompanied by idea that money "trickles down". I've not heard one proponent of that admit that any of the attempts, Kansas comes to mind, disproved the idea. On the other side, the belief that state capitalism ("socialism") works outside of very narrow examples will work. Ideology trumps evidence.

Flatworms learn that fire is hot. Politicians keep putting their hands in the fire, ignore the burning and then put their hands back in the fire over and over and over and over and over again.

 

[PureX]

Capitalism assumes that folks will look out for their own best interests. Democracy assumes people will look out for their own best interests. This IMO would actually be fine if everyone was on a level playing field. Unfortunately not everyone is

Actually, democracy assumes that everyone will look out for their whole society's best interest, and not just their own. Otherwise there would be no point to it. It would be just anarchy masquerading as democracy. Unfortunately, the selfishness of capitalism tends to poison the social intent of democracy, and the result is that anarchy masquerading as democracy. And then, arising from the chaos of that anarchy, come the bullyboys, and eventually the oligarchs and plutocrats (thug rule).

 

[Nakosis]

Actually, democracy assumes that everyone will look out for their whole society's best interest, and not just their own. Otherwise there would be no point to it. It would be just anarchy masquerading as democracy.

I see you are not alone in this view. Is this actually proven/studied or is this just another political idea assumed to be true?

Unfortunately, the selfishness of capitalism tends to poison the social intent of democracy, and the result is that anarchy masquerading as democracy. And then, arising from the chaos of that anarchy, come the bullyboys, and eventually the oligarchs and plutocrats (thug rule).

I don't see why capitalism would be any different than democracy. One works via money the other via votes. If one can find a way to consolidate either resource it would provide them an edge over others.

 

[Father Heathen]

From what I understand, trickle-down economics is a demonstrably failed idea yet still supported by Republican legislators. That suggests two things: (1) these Republicans are ignorant of this fact, and/or (2) they are in denial of this fact because they choose to serve corporate interests, not the American people as a whole.

They know it's BS, but it's a useful myth for convincing people to vote against their own interests.
"Roll over and you'll get some scraps from the master's table."

 

[PureX]

I see you are not alone in this view. Is this actually proven/studied or is this just another political idea assumed to be true?

If you will apply your own capacity for reason, you will not need any studies. There is no "government" in a society in which everyone simply acts on their own best interests. There isn't really even a society, at that point. There is just anarchy, and chaos. Until a few of the more violent and aggressive humans band together and use their superior force to make others serve their best interests. But that's not democracy, that's just mob rule, by force. It's not until people band together into a 'society' to protect themselves from mob force that the society becomes a true democracy. And that can't happen if everyone is still just looking out for their own best interests. It can only happen when they begin to look out for each other's best interest, understanding that in doing so, they are also protecting their own.

I don't see why capitalism would be any different than democracy. One works via money the other via votes.

Capitalism is not defined by "money", it's defined by systemized greed: that is the singular goal of gaining the maximum return on the minimum capital investment, and doing so by giving the capital investor total control over the commercial enterprise. Thus, it actively seeks to subjugate the well-being of everyone in the society in which it functions, except that of the capital investor, and it is therefor a toxic phenomena within any society that allows it to flourish, unrestrained.

And democracy is not defined by "votes", it's defined by every member of a society having an equal say in the actions that society takes to ensure it's own well-being (not to ensure the well-being of a single leader, or mob, or capital investor).

If one can find a way to consolidate either resource it would provide them an edge over others.

It's sad that you see competition is the only motive of human interaction.

 

[LuisDantas]

Political movements often make self-styled "truths" to motivate themselves. "Trickle down economics" comes to mind, as do White Man's Burden and the "2016's Impeachment was a coup" narrative popular in some Brazilian circles.

There is IMO no depth to it. It is just the well documented anthropological phenomenom of people dealing with insecurities by creating binding rituals that they agree to adhere to. It makes for a previsible social routine which creates familiarity and therefore a sense of security.

Of course, that also creates the unavoidable, self-inflicted vulnerability to anyone who bothers to question those dogmas.

 

[LuisDantas]

They know it's BS, but it's a useful myth for convincing people to vote against their own interests.
"Roll over and you'll get some scraps from the master's table."

It goes a bit further and more primal than that, IMO.

People who are deeply afraid of change grab most anything that has a vague resemblance of a logical argument and includes a promise of protecting them from those feared changes.

"Trickle down economics" is a very sorry joke far as logical arguments go, but its proponents are simply too afraid to consider the reality. Believing in that fantasy shields them. Not so much from the bursting of the bubble, but from the immediate emotional distress from acknowledging that it will indeed burst.

A very similar delusion sustains the very popular idea that it is somehow ethical to have lawyers making fortunes.

 

[idav]

It seems to me that some pretty influential political "truths" these days are based on thin air. They are no more established truths than any mere speculation is.

But they do fool a whole lot of people. And I think the chief reason they fool so many good folks is because they are logical -- or at least close enough to being logical that folks are fooled by them.

The key here is to grasp that something can be logical without being true. I think a good example of that is Public Choice Theory. Most folks might be familiar with the popular notion that all government officials are only interested in serving their own interests, and have no real interest in serving the interests of the people in general. That notion is basically the popularized version of Public Choice Theory.

The theory was cooked up by James McGill Buchanan, who was a right wing libertarian. Buchanan was also an economist, and he came up with his theory by applying some questionable assumptions about human nature (e.g. humans always act rationally to optimize their own selfish interests) to the subject of how government officials behave.

It's curious to me how so many folks will criticize all economics as remarkably out of line with reality, but still swallow Public Choice Theory (at least in its popular versions) as obviously true.

Not only did Buchanan never once do an empirical study to discover whether his theory had any real merit, but even to this day no significant amount of science has been done to either support or test it. The idea that governments act only in their own interests, but never in the interests of the people, remains mere speculation.

You might think a guy as bright as Buchanan would see how simply assuming things are facts, without bothering to check if they actually are facts, is more or less stupid.

But apparently he didn't see that. He even founded a whole school of economists who became notorious for refusing to check their theories against reality. In my opinion, they are so out of touch with reality that by now they should have gone out of business. Unfortunately, they are well funded by a handful of billionaires who seem to like how their theories can be used to persuade people to do things like privatize social security -- which would be a profitable windfall to the billionaires.

What influential political ideas do you yourself see as neither supported by nor tested against reality?

Yes pretty much. I find that people can be fairly intelligent and not have very good BS detectors. US is a nation where almost half of its populace rejects science because of propaganda. Their so no convincing people like that, facts be damned. They can’t even agree on climate change let alone more complex issues. Of course a thermometer can be quite daunting so yeah....