The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site immediately. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2013 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul.
General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here


Comment: That's impossible.
That's impossible.
The measure of "rationality" in any human endeavor is marginal utility and marginal return on investment.
If you do not believe that, you honestly have no concept whatsoever of economics and certainly do not believe in the free market, despite whatever protestations you might have to the contrary, your basic ignorance of why those things are required for a free market means you cannot believe in it.
If, for example, it increases your marginal utility to see a movie, or take a walk, or smell a flower, it is perfectly rational to invest X amount of your resources in doing so, PROVIDED YOUR MARGINAL UTILITY IS POSITIVE from doing so.
Similarly, if, for example, I can derive positive marginal utility from investing Y amount of my time and resources in order to feed the homeless, which may or may not be religiously motivated, then it is perfectly rational for me to engage in that activity.
The motivation is IRRELEVANT to the RATIONALITY of the return vs. investment as measured by utility.
Again, if you do not believe in the above, then you cannot possibly believe in the free market as that is one of the 3 underlying tenets of the free market.
This is the fatal flaw in Randroid logic, that they set themselves up as the final arbiter of rationality, WITHOUT REGARD TO UTILITY, in direct contradiction to the fundamental principles of laissez faire economics.
Replies to this comment: