299: Neuroeconomics

Take a deep breath and read the following:

quote-
A general function of neural tissue is ongoing economic evaluation, a central function for any system that must operate with limited resources, that is, all mobile creatures.

All mobile creatures run on batteries; they must continually acquire nutrients and expel wastes in order to reproduce and survive.

Consequently, the way that mobile creatures value their internal states, sensory experience, and behavioral output influences directly how they will invest their time and energy.

Our perspective is focused. By economic evaluation, we refer to the problems that an individual nervous system faces when making rapid, moment-to-moment decisions possessing real costs and potential future payoffs (good and bad).
- end quote

Comes from the article "Neural Economics and the Biological Review Substrates of Valuation" Neuron, Vol. 36, 265–284, October 10, 2002 by P. Read Montague and Gregory S. Berns

This is the way how a neuroscientist tells us , that we are continuously involved in decision-making and calculating the risks involved, when we make a decision.

Economics is of course THE area of continuous decision-making which is important for our survival and prosperity. Thence, people have pondered about the question "How does this decision-making work?"

If we know how it works, we can predict the decisions people will make, if we know all parameters. And we could make better decisions ourselves.

Utility maximization, first proposed by Daniel Bernoulli in 1738, is used to explain decision making under risk. The theory assumes that humans are rational and will assess options based on the expected utility they will gain from each.

That is a bit how we see us in economics, or at least in economic models: as calculating, selfish and rational beings.

In "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" (1759) Adam Smith add passions to this picture. In our decision-making we are driven by emotions and beliefs and passions.

In 1937 the American economist Paul Samuelson published the article "Foundations of Economics" in which he asks for a clear and simple theory of human behavior in economics.

And there he is : the Homo Economicus. He inhabited the models, used to describe and predict economic developments with his growing rationality.

Not only were all people rational, was the idea, they also know that all others are rational too and they also know that all others know this too. Rational and selfish…

To a certain extend this model works in macro-economic theories, but people do weird things, things that do not fit this model. Thence neuroeconomics. Let's look what is going on inside those heads when decision-making takes place.

An experiment: 2 persons…..one gets 10 dollar and the instruction to give some to the other, at least one dollar. The 'receiver' has two options: accept whatever he gets or say 'NO" if the amount is too low. In the later case nobody gets the money.

If you are rational and selfish as receiver, everything you get for free is a profit, isn't it? And you expect that the smart "giver" will only offer ONE dollar.

But that is not how it worked out with humans. In general the "giver" offered the "receiver" about 5 dollars. The only group that acted consistently like the homo economicus was autistic people, who lack the understanding of emotions in others.

What neuroeconomists at least have discovered is what we already have learnt from Joshua Greene's findings. Like Plato already suggested: The mind is like a charioteer, whose chariot is pulled by two horses: ratio and feelings.

The metaphore needs only one small modification, as a neuroeconomist said: the ratio is a pony and the feelings are an elephant.

In other words, it has shown that in the process of decision-making our brain become a battlefield where two parties fight for control, the prefrontal cortex against the rest :-)


The Discussion

[13:25] herman Bergson: Thank you....:-)
[13:25] herman Bergson: If you have a remark or question, the floor is yours
[13:25] Mick Nerido: Economics can't be called a science then?
[13:26] herman Bergson: ooohhhh....
[13:26] herman Bergson: As we have seen economics is a lot of psychology....
[13:26] herman Bergson: And it depends on your definition of science....
[13:26] Anja Tigerfish: yes
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:26] herman Bergson: I think we have two...
[13:27] Mick Nerido: Can outcomes be predicted?
[13:27] herman Bergson: The physics approach and the statistical approach
[13:27] herman Bergson: Economics is a statistical science...
[13:27] herman Bergson: So predictions are statistical guesses I would say
[13:28] Mick Nerido: If we had computer running the economy would it be more rational?
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: well people must first program that computer
[13:29] herman Bergson: Interesting question.......
[13:29] herman Bergson: I dont think so....
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: cause its just a machine
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: that can only do what we tell ot how to and what to do
[13:29] herman Bergson: As Adam Smith already observed....our decisions are driven by passion
[13:29] herman Bergson: We have drives,tastes, fears, hopes.....
[13:30] Mick Nerido: Computer have no feelings or passion
[13:30] herman Bergson: Those count in the economic world
[13:30] Ciska Riverstone: Mick - they have no needs- why should they need an economy?
[13:30] herman Bergson: Just look how stock exchange operates..
[13:30] herman Bergson: complete irrationality...
[13:31] Mick Nerido: Funny that it is so..
[13:31] herman Bergson: Well.....the greed crisis wasn't that funny at all :-)
[13:31] Mick Nerido: lol
[13:31] Paula Dix: Mind isnt only one thing? rational and emotional arent really working together?
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:31] herman Bergson: No Paula....
[13:32] Paula Dix: so we have more than one mind?
[13:32] herman Bergson: Evolutionary the "emotional" part of the brain is older than the cortex...
[13:32] herman Bergson: So first there are the emotional responses....fear, hope etc...
[13:33] Paula Dix: i see, then dennet is right on that text about mind being imaginary
[13:33] herman Bergson: The the prefrontal cortex kicks in and tries to control the situation
[13:33] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): :) we are exactly two folks in one
[13:33] Paula Dix: lol
[13:33] herman Bergson: By reducing the emotional part for instance...
[13:33] herman Bergson: That is why there can be panics in the stock exchange...
[13:34] herman Bergson: Rationally people say...ok no drama here....
[13:34] herman Bergson: But the emotions yell PANIC....Black Monday....Let's sell all shares of company X
[13:35] herman Bergson: and then it is a matter of who wins ^_^
[13:35] herman Bergson: In fact an enormously complex process
[13:35] Cain Levasseur: Asian Crisis a few years ago also started from fear
[13:35] herman Bergson: Well...there you have the example
[13:36] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): Panic certainly isn't rational, a prime example of our cerbral selves not harnessing our primal self
[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes indeed Aristotle....and our rationality is in another part of the brain...
[13:36] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): "The Monster is out"
[13:36] Mick Nerido: Everyone can't win in the stock market
[13:36] herman Bergson: In a way ...yes ^_^
[13:36] Paula Dix: but what part decides what of these parts will win?
[13:37] herman Bergson: Good question Paula ^_^
[13:37] herman Bergson: You get the inclination to put in a referee...in your head....
[13:37] herman Bergson: The one who decides who wins...
[13:38] Marli Hax: okay then, I am sorry to leave you now, but I have to go off to bed now
[13:38] herman Bergson: Limbic system or prefrontal cortex :-)
[13:38] Marli Hax: it was a great reading herman, thank you
[13:38] herman Bergson: Sweet dreams Marli
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: ok night Marli
[13:38] Paula Dix: bye marli
[13:38] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): yes, my question is who and where is the referee?
[13:38] Ciska Riverstone: Bye Marli
[13:38] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): good night marli
[13:38] Marli Hax: good night all
[13:38] Anja Tigerfish: have honey sweet dreams Marli
[13:38] herman Bergson: And here we touch on the philophy of mind
[13:39] herman Bergson: Yeah she is still so small....
[13:39] herman Bergson: To continue on your question Paula
[13:40] herman Bergson: I dont think neuroscientists KNOW who wins and why....
[13:40] herman Bergson: They observe that one of the two wins to put it simple...
[13:40] Paula Dix: makes sense :))
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: ok
[13:40] herman Bergson: The wireing of the brain is soooooo complex...
[13:41] Paula Dix: yes, certainly not an yes/no decision...
[13:41] herman Bergson: Left aside that not two brains are the same
[13:41] herman Bergson: No....not at all, I think
[13:41] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): Succeeding generations have to be the winners
[13:41] Cain Levasseur: and i think that to get an answer we cant only look the biological side of the problem
[13:42] Cain Levasseur: there are also cultural factors, material factors, etc.
[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes Cain..it all is involved in such problems...
[13:42] herman Bergson: education, personal history...etc.
[13:42] Paula Dix: yes, many brain parts evaluating many things at the same time
[13:42] Cain Levasseur: right
[13:43] herman Bergson: exactly paula.....
[13:43] herman Bergson: And we are now at the level of observing it happen...
[13:43] herman Bergson: We only have correlations between brain events and behavior for instance...
[13:44] herman Bergson: How to interpret the relation between brain states and mental states is still a philosophical issue
[13:44] Mick Nerido: Its like perception all of us see things differently
[13:44] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): whoever survives the battle between rational and instinct will procreate and improve the species
[13:44] herman Bergson: Well Aristotle.....
[13:45] herman Bergson: That is a sound you hear among neuroscientists....
[13:45] herman Bergson: Understanding the brain will lead to a better understanding of ourselves and our behavior
[13:46] Mick Nerido: Cloning will allow one kind of brain to take over
[13:46] herman Bergson: Theoretically yes Mick...
[13:46] herman Bergson: But we KNOW for sure what will happen then...
[13:46] herman Bergson: We have patients with brain damage....
[13:47] herman Bergson: Where either the rational part of the emotional part is damaged...
[13:47] herman Bergson: These people cant live a normal life...
[13:47] herman Bergson: They are fundamentally handicapped
[13:47] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): one can cook a nice looking pudding, it is in the tasting (practical application) which will determine how well the neuroscientists can cook
[13:48] Mick Nerido: what about left and right brain control
[13:48] herman Bergson: That is a nice picture of the brain....
[13:48] herman Bergson: and very general..
[13:49] herman Bergson: The brain has a great plasticity...
[13:49] herman Bergson: So in general this picture behind me is ok....
[13:50] herman Bergson: but as I said....statistically....no two brains are alike
[13:50] Bejiita Imako: correct
[13:50] herman Bergson: We are still at the beginning of the 5th revolution.....
[13:51] herman Bergson: Understanding the brain and ourselves...
[13:51] Cain Levasseur: ¿what do you mean by 5th revolution?
[13:51] herman Bergson: started in the last decade...about 2001 or so
[13:51] herman Bergson: It is in the first lecture on this project...
[13:52] Mick Nerido: 2nd life is like a big brain
[13:52] herman Bergson: Our view of our selves is revolutionarized....thrown over several times
[13:52] Anja Tigerfish: *-*rOfl*-*
[13:52] Anja Tigerfish: *-*r0fl*-*
[13:52] Bejiita Imako: hehee
[13:52] Bejiita Imako: well lot of peoples minds in here
[13:52] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:52] Anja Tigerfish: ㋡
[13:53] herman Bergson: Yes ....here we are only minds :-)
[13:53] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:53] Anja Tigerfish: cool
[13:53] Mick Nerido: very true
[13:53] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:53] herman Bergson: Well If you don't mind....
[13:53] Mick Nerido: mind over matter
[13:53] herman Bergson: I would like to thank you for your participation....
[13:53] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): the coldness of rationality and the heat of passion should mix into a lovely warmth
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: really interesting ㋡
[13:54] Cain Levasseur: Thank you
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ok all have to move on
[13:54] herman Bergson: poetic Aristotle
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: a rez party to attend
[13:54] Mick Nerido: Yes great lecture
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: cu soon again ㋡
[13:54] herman Bergson: Thank you all
[13:54] Ciska Riverstone: interesting as always - thank you Herman
[13:54] herman Bergson: Class dismissed :-)
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: Hooo!!!
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: Hoooo!
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: cu
[13:54] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): Thank you Professor :) stimulating as always
[13:54] Paula Dix: great! :))
[13:54] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman it's very interesting
[13:55] Anja Tigerfish: *^*^*^*^* Anja thinks that's *^*^*^*^*
[13:55] Anja Tigerfish: SuperCrazyFunnyFantasticBombasticCooool

291: Brain and Morality 2

Some critics of Marc Hauser demand more than just a a catalogue of moral "grammatical " rules, like Chomsky did for language, but they want to see how these rules are encoded in the brain and its processes.

This is where natural sciences come in. Traditionally ethics was the playground of philosophers and later psychologists too. Morality is regarded as the differentia specifica, the unique quality of humans that makes them differ from other creatures.

It was the task of the philosopher to uncover the roots of our knowledge of good and evil. It has a long history. For a long time the Greek, like Plato and Aristotle, dominated the field with their claim that standards for good and evil were embedded in nature.

In the seventeenth century we see how the philosophical arena was split up in two parties: on the one hand we had the empiricists like David Hume and on the other hand we had the rationalists like Immanuel Kant.

In relation to ethics the empiricists are also called sentimentalists. This is because Hume didn't believe in universal moral principles. He believed in the inner sentiments of the individual.

When somebody is in need we just feel the urge to help him and not because we think that it is right to do so. Adam Smith (1790+) wrote a book with the characteristic name "The theory of Moral Sentiment".

Smith proposes a theory of sympathy, in which the act of observing others makes people aware of themselves and the morality of their own behavior.

On the other side of the wall we find Immanuel Kant with his Categorical Imperative. Moral truth cannot be derived from human emotions or nature. Rational thinking reveals for us the universal principles.

The most rational and logical principal then would be: Act in such a way that whatever you do could be formulated as a universal law. Or in other words you do right, if you can say that everybody should act like you.

In the long run this has lead to the fundamental dispute between utilitarianism and Duty ethics and we love to think binary: what is the source of morality…. sentiments OR ratio.

Joshua Greene,Assistant Professor Department of Psychology and neuroscientist at Harvard University uses natural sciences to find an answer to this question, in stead of philosophical analysis.

Think about this dilemma:
the switch dilemma: A runaway trolley is hurtling down the tracks toward five people who will be killed if it proceeds on its present course. You can save these five people by diverting the trolley onto a different set of tracks,

one that has only one person on it, but if you do this that person will be killed. Is it morally permissible to turn the trolley and thus prevent five deaths at the cost of one? Most people say "Yes."

the footbirdge dilemma: Once again, the trolley is headed for five people. You are standing next to a large man on a footbridge spanning the tracks. The only way to save the five people is to push this man off the footbridge and into the path of the trolley. Is that morally permissible? Most people say "No."

Greene himself says: "there is a different neural system that responds very differently to these two dilemmas. This system typically responds with a relatively strong, negative emotional response to the action in the footbridge dilemma, but not to the action in the switch dilemma.

When this more emotional system is engaged, its responses tend to dominate people's judgments, explaining why people tend to make utilitarian judgments in response to the switch dilemma, but not in response to the footbridge dilemma. If you make the utilitarian judgment sufficiently attractive, you can elicit a prolonged competition between these two systems."

The emotional parts of the brain have evolutionary developed prior to the prefrontal cortex, which enables us to abstract thinking and reasoning.

It may be somewhat of a simplification, but the debate between Hume and Kant looks like the debate in the brain between different parts of the brain, the more emotional part and the more reasoning part.

So it seems that moral judgement can be observed by looking at the brain activity of an individual. This could have real consequences for our moral judgements about the behavior of others.


The Discussion

[13:22] herman Bergson: Thank you....
[13:22] herman Bergson: If you have a question or remark...the floor is yours :-)
[13:23] herman Bergson: Main issue of today is that there are two brain systems involved in moral judgements...
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: that is difficult to understand moral judgement can be observed in the brain activity
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: before or after an action is taken?
[13:24] herman Bergson: Well Ciska...it can be done by MRI scanner.....
[13:24] herman Bergson: At the moment of evaluating the situation Gemma
[13:24] herman Bergson: There was a patient with serious brain damage....
[13:24] itsme Frederix: I like this topic.
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: but maybe the interpretation is not what the person means to do
[13:24] herman Bergson: This man was not able to feel.....
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: i would like to see the study
[13:25] AristotleVon Doobie: in the switch dilemma, I would consider the number of folks potentially harmed and weigh the possibility that one would be more than likely to avoid the trolley over the more numerous....the footbridge is a hands on, no doubt of the consequences
[13:25] herman Bergson: He wasn't able to show social behavior anymore
[13:26] itsme Frederix: Ari be rational and think like Kant, if you were the one on the alternative track you certainly would not that the switch was set to your track.
[13:26] herman Bergson: Well Aristotle....point in the dilemma is that when we have contact with the victim it seems to be less worse than when we just pull a switch...
[13:26] herman Bergson: Hauser observed the same regarding how people choose in such situations
[13:27] AristotleVon Doobie:this dilemma is still a rational decision for me, either one either summons the sentiment or negates it
[13:27] herman Bergson: The subject of today is just the tip of a veil.....
[13:27] herman Bergson: this kind of brain research has just started
[13:28] herman Bergson: But what they observe is that in moral judgements there are two brain systems active...
[13:29] herman Bergson: But the more rational a person is, the more he tends to choose a utilitarian solution
[13:29] herman Bergson: the more impulsive a person is he tends to make an emotional choice
[13:29] herman Bergson: or one on principles
[13:29] herman Bergson: For instance....
[13:30] herman Bergson: cells from embryos can be used for research....
[13:30] herman Bergson: stem-cells they are called I guess
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:30] herman Bergson: Is this morally allowed or not?
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: well as long u don't harm the embryo i say its ok
[13:30] herman Bergson: They are taken from human beings
[13:31] herman Bergson: that is impossible Bejiita
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: and as long u do it for good things
[13:31] itsme Frederix: what is good?
[13:31] Beertje Beaumont: who can be sure of that?
[13:31] herman Bergson: Well there you choose the Utilitarian solution Bejiita...for the good of the greatest number...
[13:31] itsme Frederix: saving Hitler when almost dead born?
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: dont know how that research works but i know stem cells can repair the entire body sort of
[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes Bejiita...that is the goal of that research...
[13:32] itsme Frederix: stem cells is a great topic
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: bur taking out the cells should do no harm in that case
[13:32] herman Bergson: But when you are a universalist you say ..all human life is sacred....
[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: :) it seems we are describing a 'moral scale' wher we weight the most harm and choose the the least amount of harm
[13:33] herman Bergson: so it is immoral to use embryos for research...
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: if u for ex kill the embryo in the process its not good
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: then have to find some other way
[13:33] herman Bergson: I think these embryos come from in vitro ferilisation...
[13:33] itsme Frederix: Bej what if the embryo was there because it could serve for stem cels
[13:33] itsme Frederix: just because for that convicted?
[13:34] itsme Frederix: there you are
[13:34] herman Bergson: Then we are close to breading embryos for research Itsme
[13:34] herman Bergson: But what my point is here is....
[13:34] itsme Frederix: yep, the same we do with pigs for meat to eat
[13:34] Beertje Beaumont: how old are these embryos?
[13:34] herman Bergson: in philosophy we have this utilitarian and Duty ethics dichotomy…
[13:34] AristotleVon Doobie: do we say 'now if I were an embro, would I want to be trearted like that?' or is it impossible to empathise that scenario?
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: hmm tricky question, its not right to create a life form for that reason if that life form wouldn't be allowed to live and develop as human afterwards
[13:35] herman Bergson: and in the brain there seems to be some kind of analogue division
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: its really tricky
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: i think we will learn much more as time goes
[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes GEmma...I have no answer here...
[13:36] herman Bergson: But another consequence is....
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: i hadn't minded i think if they had done that on me as long they didn't harmed me but let me live and grow up just like the person I am now
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: just like any other
[13:36] itsme Frederix: Gemma you mean we as students in this class, or we as humans?
[13:36] AristotleVon Doobie: the argument of not using embryos is like the Pope's stance on contraception
[13:36] herman Bergson: what about guilt when we see in a brain scan that some part of the brain of a person doesn't work...
[13:37] herman Bergson: Now we just judge and convict a person because he is guilty...based on evidence of his action
[13:37] herman Bergson: Imagine that a brain scan showed that the person had no ability of rational control?
[13:37] herman Bergson: or only very weak
[13:37] itsme Frederix: I read an article last week about "guildless justice", that is a totally other view and conseqeunce if you say we have no such thing as "free will".
[13:38] herman Bergson: Yes Itsme...this is closely related withthe Free Will problem
[13:39] herman Bergson: A number of neurobiologists say that free will is an elusion...
[13:39] itsme Frederix: It was a Belgium author who wrote about it, seems that this kind of justice is in high study at the moment
[13:39] herman Bergson: It is on the list of future lectures
[13:39] itsme Frederix: oke
[13:39] itsme Frederix: But partly we already have accepted such things,
[13:40] herman Bergson: Yes we take into account personal circumstances , the personal history and things like that
[13:40] itsme Frederix: Oke, but herman I've certainly missed something (mea culpa) what is the central topic this course?
[13:41] herman Bergson: Read the first introduction in the Weblog, Itsme...
[13:41] herman Bergson: but in a few words....
[13:41] herman Bergson: Theme is : We are our brain
[13:41] herman Bergson: A materialist view on reality
[13:41] itsme Frederix: I'm reading more than I can stand at the moment. Be comprehensive.
[13:41] itsme Frederix: Got it.
[13:42] herman Bergson: But don't worry...the free will issue from a neurobiological point of view will certainly be one of our subjects...
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: :_)
[13:42] herman Bergson: On my desk I have a brand new book: Free Will does Not exist
[13:43] herman Bergson: That is the title...!
[13:43] herman Bergson: So you'll hear about it
[13:43] Beertje Beaumont: is free will the same as free choice?
[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: all this neurobiology is so very cold...I wonder if neurobiologist ever fall in love
[13:43] BALDUR Joubert: many books about that.. neurobiologists love to make philosophical conclusions
[13:43] Beertje Beaumont: they don't...
[13:44] herman Bergson: smiles
[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: surely they mustn't
[13:44] itsme Frederix: Ari sure they do, neurological - some electric between the brains and they enjoy it
[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: then love is just a synapse
[13:44] herman Bergson: Yes baldur...nowadays it is impossible as a philosopher to ignore the neurobiolological evidence that is growing rapidly these days
[13:44] itsme Frederix: Ari yes
[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: oh my, how depressing
[13:45] herman Bergson: The question of Beertje : Is free will free choice....
[13:45] herman Bergson: no....
[13:45] itsme Frederix: think of the times you failed in love - out it was - that helps I guess just a synapse
[13:45] BALDUR Joubert: you are right about the 5th revolutioon.. but as with all revolutions.. takes time to understand the meanings:)
[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: it will revolutionize our thinking about affection
[13:46] herman Bergson: Oh absolutely Baldur....
[13:46] herman Bergson: but that is the exciting thing of this project....
[13:46] herman Bergson: we are in the frontlines of the revolution...it takes place this very decade
[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: 'I love you because my brain cell was stimulated'
[13:46] itsme Frederix: so we have a nice winter tale coming up Herman!?
[13:46] BALDUR Joubert: smile.. there i agree.. and the approaches are so varied it is more then exiting..
[13:46] Beertje Beaumont: lol
[13:47] AristotleVon Doobie: such poetry will come from neurobiology
[13:47] herman Bergson: We will come to that Aristotle,,,but you are mixing up two languages in your declaration of love ^_^
[13:48] herman Bergson: It is the same as saying I am glad you enjoyed the H2O....you want another glass?
[13:48] herman Bergson: Smiles...
[13:49] herman Bergson: Your synapses don't respond, Aristotle?
[13:49] AristotleVon Doobie: I am still confident of the two parts of the brain working with each other, I think the modern approach is to dismiss our primal urges
13:49] AristotleVon Doobie: and the cerebral control of them
[13:49] herman Bergson: In a sense you could be right aristotle....
[13:50] herman Bergson: If the future is the dominance of the prefrontal cortex.....where our rationality resides...
[13:50] herman Bergson: We are just a moment in evolution.....
[13:51] AristotleVon Doobie: I fully believe that we can only cover up those primal instincts, we will never remove them
[13:51] herman Bergson: Well...This was just the tip of an iceberg that is awaiting us in the future...
[13:51] AristotleVon Doobie: no matter how intelligent we fool ourselves into believing
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: i think so too
[13:52] herman Bergson: I agree Aristotle....for it would mean to remove parts of the brain
[13:52] AristotleVon Doobie: yes
[13:52] Bejiita Imako: aaa
[13:52] AristotleVon Doobie: 'a frontal lobotomy'
[13:52] Beertje Beaumont: but other parts can take over
[13:52] AristotleVon Doobie: or a 'rear one'
[13:52] herman Bergson: ouch....that is a weird operation Aristotle...
[13:52] Beertje Beaumont: and the primary parts can shrink
[13:53] herman Bergson: I read about an effect of lobotomy....
[13:53] herman Bergson: creepy.....
[13:53] itsme Frederix: Herman that has been done before, remember the explosive guy in US years ago
[13:53] AristotleVon Doobie: wonder if those folks had moral issues
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: have to go now
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: see you thursday i hope
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ok cu Gemma
[13:54] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Gemma
[13:54] Beertje Beaumont: take care Gemma
[13:54] itsme Frederix: me to, I wonder what is coming of us as human?
[13:54] herman Bergson: Yes Itsme....it really is an interesting wuestion...
[13:54] herman Bergson: question
[13:55] itsme Frederix: I most certainly will attempt to follow the next course thursday. I promise. Bye all
[13:55] Beertje Beaumont: bye Itsme
[13:55] Bejiita Imako: ok bye Itsme
[13:55] Ciska Riverstone: bye itsme
[13:55] herman Bergson: Time to dismiss the class I would say...
[13:55] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation
[13:55] itsme Frederix: good luck, and ... don't worry to much about all these things. Its also fun!
[13:55] AristotleVon Doobie: thanks Professor
[13:56] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:56] Beertje Beaumont: Thank you Herman
[13:56] AristotleVon Doobie: :), fun is just a brain cell
[13:56] Beertje Beaumont: lol Ari
[13:56] Bejiita Imako: lol
[13:56] Beertje Beaumont: i hope it's much more
[13:56] Ciska Riverstone: Thank you Herman
[13:56] herman Bergson: Just one Aristotle?
[13:56] AristotleVon Doobie: I am not happy, my brain is
[13:56] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL
[13:56] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:56] Ciska Riverstone: as long as it feels like it does- who cares?
[13:57] AristotleVon Doobie: yeah, ciska...thats right
[13:57] AristotleVon Doobie: smiling
[13:57] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:57] herman Bergson: Well sweet brains.....enjoy your day then ^_^ . Class dismissed.
[13:57] Bejiita Imako: haha
[13:58] Bejiita Imako: I will
[13:58] Ciska Riverstone: *ggg*
[13:58] AristotleVon Doobie: regardless of wher it is or where it came form, just love and enjoy life :)
[13:58] herman Bergson: that is the idea, Aristotle !
[13:58] Ciska Riverstone: dito Aristotle

258: Mikhail Aleksandrovich Bakunin (1814 - 1876)

I thought it might be interesting not to run to Marx immediately but to begin with his opponent. The communist system collapsed, so Marx was wrong. Was his opponent right?

This opponent of Marx was Mikhail Aleksandrovich Bakunin (1814 - 1876). When you read his personal history you will be astonished about that life. He was a real revolutionary in those days.

Bakunin is remembered as a major figure in the history of anarchism and an opponent of Marxism, especially of Marx's idea of dictatorship of the proletariat

His disagreements with Marx led to his expulsion from the International in 1872 after being outvoted by the Marx party at the Hague Congress,

The dispute centered on disagreement over political methods. Marx and his followers held that socialists must seize the state and usher in a transitional dictatorship of the proletariat.

Bakunin argued that power seized by workers was no less evil than power in other hands. He called for the earliest possible destruction of the state and the avoidance of political means toward that end. The workers must win their own liberation by economic and insurrectional means.

Here we see the dispute between the "anti-authoritarian" ideas of Bakunin, which advocated the direct revolutionary action and organization of the workers in order to abolish the state and capitalism,

and the ideas of Marx, which advocated the conquest of political power by the working class.

This was collectivist anarchism against the dictatorship of the proletariat. Thus began the historic rivalry between libertarian and authoritarian views of socialism.

Bakunin and the other collectivists agreed with the mutualists , which were inspired by the ideas of Proudhon, in their rejection of the state and of political methods, in their stress on federalism, and in their view that the worker should be rewarded according to his labor.

On the other hand, they differed in stressing the need for revolutionary means to bring about the downfall of the state and the establishment of a libertarian society.

Most important, they advocated the public ownership and the exploitation through workers’ associations of the land and all services and means of production.

While in mutualism the individual worker had been the basic unit, in collectivism it was the group of workers; Bakunin specifically rejected individualism of any kind and maintained that anarchism was a social doctrine and must be based on the acceptance of
collective responsibilities.

All these ideas came into being when in 1865 Bakunin founded the International Brotherhood in Naples. Its program—embodied in Bakunin’s Revolutionary Catechism—was anarchism without the name;

it rejected the state and organized religion, advocated communal autonomy within a federal structure, and maintained that labor “must be the sole base of human right and of the economic organization of the state.”

In keeping with the cult of violence that was part of the romantic revolutionary tradition, Bakunin insisted that the social revolution could not be achieved by peaceful means.

Here you see what a hundred years of history mean in the development of mankind. Locke saw property as the basic economic value and a 60 years later Adam Smith showed that human labor the basic economic value is.

A hundred years later due to industrialization and mass production methods man follows Smith's idea: LABOR is the economic value and the laborer should be in charge in the state.

Bakunin's ideas didn't make it. He lost the vote. Marx won the vote and lost credibility a hundred years later.


The Discussion

[13:24] herman Bergson: so much on Bakunin...
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: well he had a very interesting life to say the least
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: i looked at his bio
[13:25] herman Bergson: Unbelievable...
[13:25] herman Bergson: That man must have had an energy like an elephant
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: haha'
[13:26] herman Bergson: And all the traveling he did...for the cause..!
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:26] herman Bergson: What is very interesting is the economic value of labor in those days...
[13:27] herman Bergson: The laborers started to organize and become powerfull
[13:27] Alaya Kumaki: was he killed ?
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: with all that work he did not make much of an impression did he
[13:28] herman Bergson: And what is instructive too is the opposition of Bakunin against Marx's idea to give the laborer political power
[13:28] herman Bergson: He died when he was 62 when I am not mistaken of an illness...
[13:28] herman Bergson: In Switserland...
[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: no he just died yes not killed
[13:29] Alaya Kumaki: to give them a state worker statue, as a state itself, seems the same as a state for me, just creating a higher salary worker groups.. look like what a monarchy is
[13:29] herman Bergson: Well he made some impression..oh yes..he was all over Europe
[13:29] herman Bergson: His ideas lived longest in Spain
[13:29] herman Bergson: But Marx won
[13:30] Alaya Kumaki: sate=state*
[13:30] herman Bergson: Kiki..are you ok?
[13:30] Kiki Walpanheim: yes
[13:30] herman Bergson: oh you looked frozen... ㋡
[13:30] Kiki Walpanheim: ;-)
[13:30] herman Bergson: Anyway…Marx won...
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: yes he did
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: seems so
[13:31] Kiki Walpanheim: i am just thinking about lecture notes....
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: cause Marx ive heard about but barley this guy
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: checking him up a little on wiki though
[13:31] herman Bergson: Well the main difference was power...
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:32] herman Bergson: should the worker have power or should everything be organized in small groups...and federations of groups
[13:33] herman Bergson: marx made of the workers one class...and yes Ayayla..maybe the new royalty ㋡
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: no doubt power to small groups would appeal to those who were already powerful in their small groups
[13:33] herman Bergson: Bakunin was right in one thing
[13:33] herman Bergson: he said..
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: not to be too cynical
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: which would likely be hard
[13:33] herman Bergson: give one revolutionary power and in no time he will be worse than the Tzar
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: yes ㋡
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: power people
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: all the same pretty much
[13:34] herman Bergson: And I think ..now we can say that history has shown that he was right
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: aa yes
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: probably
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: would not be good thing
[13:34] druth Vlodovic: give anyone power and no controleing traditions or structure and they go the same
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: true it seems
[13:34] herman Bergson: Very true Druth...very true
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: who was the one who wanted the special class of leaders???
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: i always asked where they would come from
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: with that special gift
[13:35] herman Bergson: Plato already wanted that Gemma
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: yes but someone this grouping
[13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: trying to recall the name
[13:36] herman Bergson: ok...all humans are equal...
[13:36] druth Vlodovic: there are advantages to it, if the leaders are in for life and progeny then they can more easily take the long view
[13:37] herman Bergson: Liberalism and socialism made fundamental mistakes...
[13:37] Alaya Kumaki: there are many marxist who agree upon the use of violence to achieve their ways too, i wonder if they brought that idea from Bakunin
[13:37] herman Bergson: I'll get to that at the end of the project...
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: interesting, druth
[13:38] herman Bergson: bakunin pleaded fror a total destruction of the old situation as a necessary condition to build the new world
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: ahhhh...some tried that in Cambodia more recently
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: horror results
[13:39] herman Bergson: Well Druth..and where do they get that long term view from?
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: really bad
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: This is where i dont understand....it seems like just marxist idea to me....
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: a total destruction of the old situation
[13:40] Kiki Walpanheim: well....this time I didnt do pre-reading before the lecture...maybe i need to look them up a little later...
[13:40] herman Bergson: Well is basically is an anarchist view to overthrow government..
[13:41] Alaya Kumaki: what can we do if we learned from youth to reproduce a model that if we think to change it, we just reproduce the same, unless we reorganize the structure, differently, and that is utopic, since that what is there was build in more than 400 years, what can we don in one human lifes
[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: a total destruction of the old situation to build the new world --- seems like the idea of revolution....
[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: just like marxism or maoism....
[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: I don't know
[13:41] herman Bergson: I am not sure ..
[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: maybe the key is what to do after the destruction
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: or the Khmer Rouge, perhaps?
[13:42] herman Bergson: but Marx wanted to use the political ways to seize power for the workers...
[13:42] druth Vlodovic: plenty of examples of hereditary ruling classes taking a very limited view, but n cases where they like their kids the future of the nation is also the future of their own family/clan
[13:42] herman Bergson: Bakunin wanted direct action
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: violence
[13:42] Kiki Walpanheim: does political ways involve violence and warfare?
[13:43] herman Bergson: That does not apply to the Clans in Afghanistan Druth
[13:43] Kiki Walpanheim: there are some approaches to social revolution, could be via violence, or peace
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: i think not
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: not the right way to do it
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: unfortunately this is what happens all over the world in many countries
[13:44] herman Bergson: Well...next one will ne Marx and then we'll see how he tought about violent revolution ㋡
[[13:44] Kiki Walpanheim: oh
[13:44] Repose Lionheart: oh, good ㋡
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:44] Kiki Walpanheim: never read marxism thoroughly.....mostly secondary literature about him
[13:45] herman Bergson: Marx believed that the capitalist system would collapse by itself, so that the workers could take over automatically if I am not mistaken
[13:45] Kiki Walpanheim: oh....then that is quite different from maoism i think
[13:45] Repose Lionheart: ideology based on 19th C. social theory
[13:45] herman Bergson: I never did read "Das Kapital" myself Kiki ㋡
[13:45] Kiki Walpanheim: me neither
[13:45] Repose Lionheart: still, he was prescient in some ways...
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: i never did just a little
[13:46] Kiki Walpanheim: only studied his philosophy and his political economics
[13:46] Kiki Walpanheim: but only through secondary literature
[13:46] Kiki Walpanheim: his objectivism and the like
[13:47] herman Bergson: Well....as history shows...MArx's ideas lead to a dictatorship of the ideology, while Bakunin would have detested that
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: oh
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: oki
[13:47] Kiki Walpanheim: but it seems as if in real life, they chose bakunin .....
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: ah
[13:47] Kiki Walpanheim: i dont know
[13:48] herman Bergson: I wouldnt say that, Kiki...
[13:48] Kiki Walpanheim: regarding, if violence was used on the revolution
[13:48] herman Bergson: In real life all freedom was gone for the workers...there was the oppression if The Party ideology
[13:48] Kiki Walpanheim: or they let the capitalism collapse itself
[13:49] herman Bergson: I think that that would be against all ideas of Bakunin
[13:49] Kiki Walpanheim: bakunin advocated the western type of freedom? because marxism said all this was for the freedom of the workers too...only ppl interpreted freedom quite differently
[13:50] Kiki Walpanheim: :/
[13:50] herman Bergson: Well...what I learnt..even as a youngster was that the communist were just sitting and waiting for Capitalism to collapse
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: the chinese civil war happened prior to.....
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: i don't know....
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: to when the communism was established
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: think so...
[13:51] herman Bergson: That was Mao's big march wasnt it?
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: the civil war before 1949 i mean
[13:52] herman Bergson: 1949..
[13:52] Repose Lionheart: began before WWII
[13:52] herman Bergson: Well..these are facts we can find inour history books ㋡
[13:52] Kiki Walpanheim: yes
[13:52] Repose Lionheart: yes ㋡
[13:52] herman Bergson: So..
[13:53] herman Bergson: for today we might say...maybe Bakinin was right but outvoted
[13:53] Kiki Walpanheim: i dont have any impression that revolution was achieved by waiting the old world to collapse itself....
[13:53] herman Bergson: and Marx..well...we'll see next class ㋡
[13:53] Kiki Walpanheim: according to the civil war
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: ohoh
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: ok
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: interesting
[13:54] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor ㋡
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: :)
[13:54] herman Bergson: So..Thank you all for the good discussion and your participation again
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: see you thursday i hope
[13:54] Zinzi Serevi: thanks prof bye all..:)
[13:54] Zinzi's translator: thanks prof bye all ..:)
[13:54] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ㋡
[13:54] Kiki Walpanheim: Thank you Professor
[13:54] Rodney Handrick: thanks
[13:54] Kiki Walpanheim: Thank you all
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: wow
[13:54] Josiane Llewellyn: thank you Professor
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: :)
[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: thanks professor
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ok some more interesting stuff for sure :)
[13:55] druth Vlodovic: next time I'll have to arrive at the beginning :)
13:55] Yakuzza Lethecus: thx herman
[13:55] Kiki Walpanheim: it is each tuesday and thursday druth
[13:55] herman Bergson: Holy Cow Abraxas
[13:56] Abraxas Nagy: whassup prof?
[13:56] herman Bergson: What happened toyou?
[13:56] Kiki Walpanheim: at 1 pm PDT
[13:56] Abraxas Nagy: I dont know
[13:56] Yakuzza Lethecus: bye everyone
[13:56] Kiki Walpanheim: bye yakuzza
[13:56] Abraxas Nagy: do I look strabge
[13:56] Abraxas Nagy: strange*
[13:56] Bejiita Imako: no
[13:57] herman Bergson: You are beginning to falll into the category "You look cute " ㋡
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: ╔╗╔═╦╗
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: ║╚╣║║╚╗
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: ╚═╩═╩═╝
[13:57] Bejiita Imako: hahaa
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: ty herman
[13:57] Bejiita Imako: :)
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: see you in 2 days friends
[13:57] Bejiita Imako: aa cu
[13:58] herman Bergson: I am curious Abraxas...in two days !
[13:58] Abraxas Nagy: uuhhmmnn thursday?
[13:58] herman Bergson: Yes
[13:58] Abraxas Nagy: isnt that twice 24 hours from now?
[13:58] herman Bergson: soemthing like that yes
[13:59] Abraxas Nagy: well that counts for 2 dayes
[13:59] Abraxas Nagy: in my book anyway
[13:59] herman Bergson: good.....

255: The Ways of Liberalism 2

Society is a group of people, where everybody is born with his or her own set of skills. These skills are used to gain an income. The more skillful you are the higher your income can become.

Everybody is absolutely free to do with his income as he pleases. Any attempt to order the individual to spend his money on well defined targets is an infringement on personal freedom.

This means that every institution in society should be contract based. Those who pay for it, will benefit from it. Nobody is obliged to pay. Such an obligation is regarded as TAKING money from a free person and spending it against his will on issues he doesn't agree to.

A free market helps to select those who are good at different enterprises and those who are not. Any attempt to interfere with this process will disrupt the market.

From my Ayn Rand lecture"
"3.Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4.The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism."

You find the Ayn Rand Lectures under May 2009, nr. 17a and 17b. Watch out, 17b also contains the more important ones 17c and 17d.

I think that this comes close to the views of TDDiscovery (participated in the discussion of the former lecture [254]), or at least he will agree with it. This is absolute liberalism. Maybe it is even a stronger version of liberalism: Libertarianism.

The origin of libertarianism is interesting, as it is inspired by the ideas of Bernard Mandeville, born in the Netherlands, Rotterdam in 1670, but most of his life he lived in England where he died in 1733.

Mandeville arrives at a very contemporaneously vile conclusion: vice as a necessary condition for economic prosperity. His viewpoint is more severe when juxtaposed to Adam Smith's.

Both Smith and Mandeville believed that individuals’ collective actions bring about a public benefit . However, what sets his philosophy apart from Smith’s is his catalyst to that public benefit.

Smith believed in a virtuous self-interest which results in invisible cooperation. For the most part, Smith saw no need for a guide to garner that public benefit.

On the other hand, Mandeville believed it was vicious greed which led to invisible cooperation if properly channeled.

Mandeville’s qualification of proper channeling further parts his philosophy from Smith’s laissez-faire attitude. Essentially, Mandeville called for politicians to ensure that the passions of man would result in a public benefit.

It was his stated belief in his book " Fable of the Bees" that "Private Vices by the dextrous Management of a skilful Politician may be turned into Publick Benefits”
Mandeville has nice examples to underpin his point of view that "private vices are public benefits." A libertine, for example, is a vicious character, and yet his spending will employ tailors, servants, perfumers, cooks, and prostitutes

Well, like the communist system has collapsed as a not working model of a society, also Mandeville's idea that greed leads to public benefits doesn't seem to make it. Our present crisis seems to demonstrates that.

So we have to continue our quest to gain moor insight in Liberalism. Is it a working model for society or not and in what way. At least we have to prevent that the world turns into a Tea Party…..


The Discussion

[13:21] herman Bergson: The reference to the Tea Party may not be understood by everyone ㋡
[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: OMG!!!
[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: omg yes
[13:22] herman Bergson: But the Tea Party is a very strong ultra libertarian movement in the US today
[13:22] herman Bergson: Gemma understands...I expected that
[13:22] Bejiita Imako: ok
[13:22] Kiki Walpanheim is googling tea party
[13:22] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[13:23] herman Bergson: The Movement is more Republican than all Republicans together
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: hmm checking too
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: yes it is and with no real leadership
[13:23] herman Bergson: and I have a feeling it is in its ideology appealing to Mandeville's truth: greed
[13:23] herman Bergson: and self-interest
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: aaa ok now i get it
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: :)
[13:24] herman Bergson: If you have any questions or remarks..plz feel free ㋡
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: well, stupidity too...hope politicians can channel stupidity toward good ㋡
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: oh gosh i doubt it
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: indeed
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: so do i ㋡
[13:25] herman Bergson: Well stupidity is an improper word,Repose...
[13:25] Repose Lionheart: ignorance, maybe
[13:25] herman Bergson: It obscures the true reasons of this kind of political behavior
[13:25] Repose Lionheart: ahhh...
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: one winning candidate backed by the tea "party" has already put his foot so far down his throat yesterday he may not be able to get it out!
[13:25] herman Bergson: No...you have to ask for the motives of this behavior
[13:25] Repose Lionheart: i see
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: tried to take apart the civil rights law of the land
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: in some words
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: sometime i feel that politicans and organisations like those just read the rules and act like a computer on them with no feelings or own logic thinking
[13:26] herman Bergson: What does that mean Gemma?
[13:26] Kiki Walpanheim: but when everyone is acting on the self interest only...it is not always beneficial to the society as a whole...
[13:27] herman Bergson: In my lecture on Rand I already analyzed the concept of self-interest...
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: he stated that if he were around at the time of passage, there would have been a discussion on where it should apply to private businesses
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: one of the saddest examples here is the immigration society, they sometime send back people to a certain death or torture because " there are no circumstances in the rules that say they can stay"
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: make me really sad
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: should the government prohibit private business from keeping certian people put of the place
[13:28] herman Bergson: Well clear libertarianism in that Tea PArty movement then I guess
[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: we will see how far it goes
[13:29] herman Bergson: But about self - interest....
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: yes, there is, i think
[13:29] herman Bergson: It is a word and seems to describe a property of the human being
[13:29] Kiki Walpanheim: it's about whether motives define morals, ,or consequence defines it
[13:29] herman Bergson: However...what does it denotes...?
[13:30] herman Bergson: Well...you point at behavior...ok....but behavior includes motives
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: libertarians have a very narrow understanding of "self-interest"
[13:30] herman Bergson: yes Repose....so you have to look for the motives of behavior
[13:31] herman Bergson: and then the word self - interest becomes void...
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: they usually buy into the romanticism of hyper-individualisism
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: never really thought of that as the basic motive
[13:31] Kiki Walpanheim: self-interest might not be moral based on the intent, but based on the consequence, could be
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: yes ㋡
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: interesting
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: now i can see it lolol
[13:31] herman Bergson: for there is no such quality like self interest in humans
[13:31] herman Bergson: there are motives for actions...
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: oh, yes, i see
[13:32] herman Bergson: so to understand what it is all about we have to bring these motives to the surface and discuss these motives
[13:33] herman Bergson: Then we are talking politics
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: hmmm....
[13:33] Kiki Walpanheim whispers: on how self interest is restrained and guided?
[13:33] herman Bergson: One of the motives was greed....Mandeville believed it would lead to public benefit when channeled properly
[13:34] herman Bergson: It makes no sense to discuss something like self-interest...
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: hmm that can never lead to something good
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: as u said before thats what we see today
[13:35] herman Bergson: So it did...Bejiita..
[13:35] herman Bergson: The financial crisis is motivated only by greed....
[13:35] Kiki Walpanheim: just a synonym for greed...
[13:35] herman Bergson: maximizing the profits....for what good?
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:35] herman Bergson: not a social good..that is clear
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: well, when the powerful are greedy, they are able to corrupt the system for their own benefit
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: very
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: and in greece today, and Dubai, think they just can use money like water with no thought at all and look what have happened
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: totally crashed the economy now
[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes REpose...but how much sense does it make?
[13:36] Kiki Walpanheim: in game theory, as in the case of prisoner's dilemma, it could lead to problems collectively...
[13:36] Repose Lionheart: libertarianism does not take such human frailty into sufficient account, i think
[13:36] Repose Lionheart: oh...sense
[13:36] herman Bergson: No..it doesnt....
[13:36] herman Bergson: But what I dont understand....
[13:37] herman Bergson: You get a bonus of 10 million dollar...
[13:37] herman Bergson: the next year another one...
[13:37] herman Bergson: what to do with all that money?
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: regardless of performance
[13:37] herman Bergson: Even that Gemma yes
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: ahhhh...maybe greed, and vice more generally, introduce irrationalities into the system
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: hmm yes they want more and more even they cant make use of it
[13:38] herman Bergson: Why are people so attacted by huge sums of money...
[13:38] herman Bergson: You havent the lifetime to spend it all for instance
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: the irrationalities undercut those like Mandeville who are ethically attempting to square the circle
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: i use top say money is worhless untill u buy something good for it
[13:38] herman Bergson: Bill Gates is giving away lots of his billions to charity purposes…
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: oh he is great at giving money
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: and the worth is in that thing cause that is useable for something while money is just money
[13:39] herman Bergson: yes...but the amount he posses is so absurd Gemma
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: I know and so does he
[13:39] herman Bergson: Property and the free accumulation of property...that is what our society approves
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: too much money in few hands and the others can barley afford food for the day
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: his foundation gets MOST of it
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: thats not right
[13:40] herman Bergson: But I think ..at a given moment you pass the limit of rationality...
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: I agree
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:40] Zinzi Serevi: yes
[13:40] Zinzi's translator: yes
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: that is why there is a huge oligarchy emerging here in the USA
[13:40] herman Bergson: That is what all these financial guys lack...rationality...which leads to ethics
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: most do not give
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: but that shows the system is not simply rational
[13:41] herman Bergson: It is not , indeed Repose...
[13:41] herman Bergson: That is the weak point of liberalism....
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: the libertarian flaw is just there
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: in cases of public goods, natural monopoly, environment......free market might not work that well
[13:41] herman Bergson: it presuposes a rational being, but the financial world shows proven irrational behavior
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: yesss
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:42] herman Bergson: No Kiki.....you are right....
[13:42] herman Bergson: What we have to find out is what is the public good
[13:42] herman Bergson: and how does it relate to private property
[13:43] herman Bergson: and what is the right balance between the two
[13:43] Kiki Walpanheim: like...public roads.. which benefit ppl in a society as a whole
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: yes, and not at all sure...
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: agree Kiki
[13:43] Kiki Walpanheim: electricity, water supply....
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:44] herman Bergson: Yes..and these public roads..they offer individuals private property...
[13:44] Kiki Walpanheim: which is...built once in a large scale, then used for a long time
[13:44] herman Bergson: the trucking company which makes profits by using these roads
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: hmm one example of that is a power company we have here in sweden called Vattenfall ( Waterfall)
[13:44] Repose Lionheart: oh
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: the bosses take bonus after bonus and give the consumers horrible bills to pay for those bonuses
[13:45] herman Bergson: Yes...so our reseauch goes on....to define the public good....
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:45] herman Bergson: and bonus for what Nejiita?
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: also we have a strange system where the price is set after tle most expensive power which means that of one single coal plant wich is most expensive and have high environmental tax
[13:46] Kiki Walpanheim: and problems environment generally dont effect the firms' benefits unless they are more or less regulated
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: then it dont matter if we have 1000 hydrolants with cheap power running, the price is set after that last coal plant and also go to the bosses pockets
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: at least as i understand it
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: sounds familiar
[13:47] herman Bergson: I know that system Bejiita...here the price of electricity is connected to the price of oil I think
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: no good thing
[13:48] Kiki Walpanheim: also in the case of health insurance....i am still not sure if it is wise if it is entirely private..regarding adverse selection..
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: factories that produce base stuff like paper steel and so have to close because of that
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: all very interesting...high prices though assure conservation
[13:48] herman Bergson: no...absurd because the power plants use cola of gas
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: and energy efficiency
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: that need lot of power but make stuff that are absolute neccesaru for society to function
[13:48] herman Bergson: coal...I mean...the employees use cola
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: lol
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: :)
[13:49] herman Bergson: powerd by cola
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: hehye
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: damn now u got me thirsty
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: :)
[13:49] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:49] herman Bergson: Well I think it is clear that extreme liberalism doesnt work and that private vices dont lead to public benefits
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:50] Repose Lionheart: ㋡
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: more Tuesday?
[13:50] Bejiita Imako: indeed
[13:51] herman Bergson: Oh yes Gemma....we still have a long and winding road ahead...
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: ㋡
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: yay
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: i guess lol
[13:51] herman Bergson: that may lead to your door...but that is another story ㋡
[13:51] Bejiita Imako: this was some good stuff for sure
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: i used to think intentions determines if something is moral.....
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: yep it always is m8
[13:51] Bejiita Imako: this is precisley those things im mad about every time i open a newspaper
[13:52] Bejiita Imako: now i got to vent that a bit
[13:52] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: same here
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol
[13:52] herman Bergson: I understand Bejiita...
[13:52] herman Bergson: Me too
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: I better not start
[13:52] herman Bergson: Exactly Abraxas...
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: and look for something better
[13:52] Bejiita Imako: :)
[13:53] herman Bergson: But we will continue our quest into the realms of Liberalism....
[13:53] Abraxas Nagy: mmmm human nature plays a role
[13:53] Bejiita Imako: aah
[13:53] herman Bergson: So thank you for you great disussion again
[13:53] Kiki Walpanheim: Thank you professor and all
[13:53] Zinzi Serevi: thank you for the lecture
[13:53] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:53] Daruma Boa: thank u herman
[13:53] Kiki Walpanheim: see you next week
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: see you tuesday
[13:53] Abraxas Nagy: ah thank YOU professor
[13:53] herman Bergson: Yes..Abraxas...what is human nature...we might find out
[13:53] herman Bergson: class dismissed ㋡
[13:53] Saint Back: thanks a lot
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor ㋡
[13:53] Bejiita Imako: aa hope so
[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: mmm yes looking to politics shows a lot
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: bye all
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ok cu all
[13:54] Daruma Boa: hope 2 be here next week.
[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: c ya Bejjita
[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: I hope so to Daruma
[13:54] herman Bergson: You are welcome Daruma
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: going to OKm now
[13:54] Daruma Boa: have a great weekend;-)
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: OM
[13:54] herman Bergson: What message did you send?
[13:54] Zinzi Serevi: bye bye
[13:54] Zinzi's translator: bye bye
[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: you to Daruma :D
[13:54] herman Bergson: Your notice?
[13:55] bergfrau Apfelbaum: thanks herman and class :-)) see u tuesday
[13:55] herman Bergson: Ok Bergie... xxx
[13:55] bergfrau Apfelbaum: :-)+y