The Use of Knowledge in Society by F.A. Hayek 

I think you're right on about democracy and how it could summarize the interest of all these individuals. Hayek might argue, however, that with legislation brought about by democracy, you're getting a broad blanket policy that must be applied to everyone regardless of whether they want it or not. For example, banning marijuana as policy would ban it for everyone. If you kept it as a matter of the market, however, individuals who want weed would purchase it while those who don't would just avoid it. Essentially, while democracy is a much more preferable way to express the desires of a society than a dictatorship, it might not be as accurate as just leaving it to the market. Democracy does have the benefit of being equal with one person one vote whereas those with more money will have more of an influence in the market like you said. That being said there are different markets for different people. For example, those with lots of money might be extremely influential in the rolex market, but the rest of us can exert our influence over the casio market which high income people might overlook (except bill gates who I believe owns a casio lol). And in terms of compromising choice as a result of having limited funds, I think Hayek might actually see this as a pro. Because resources are limited, the resources required to create a product is reflected in the price. So when someone is deciding whether to purchase something, they're letting the producer know by purchasing/not purchasing whether it's a good use of those limited resources to make that product.

check out the video. "why Socrates hated Democracy". it might change your mind. the free market works great when its 2 sided. if a product (gasoline for example) is made too cheap compared to the cost or the cost is too high, it is the "obligation" of the consumers to boycott the product, "no matter what". this keeps the businesses in line to act fairly or risk losing their business. even the largest corporation in the world has bills to pay every month. cut off their supply of money and it would only be a very short time for them to start suffering. by no means am i saying this (or any other we have come up with) is a perfect system. if you're not versed in economics, the video, "Commanding Heights: The Battle of the World Economy" might be interesting to you.

@@PhilosophyToons I suppose then that the biggest problem with Hayek's argument is that people aren't rational decision makers. In a completely free market drug sales would proliferate as sellers take advantage of how people prioritize short term pleasure over long term gain. A world of junkies.

@@thorvaldspearWell that feeds into the theory of Social Darwinism . Most advocates of Free-Market economics believe that if left to their own devices; Social Issues will inevitably work themselves out. If a hypothetical world of junkies were to emerge it would likely only exist a short time before total collapse. What remains will be the people who abstained from drugs and hedonistic practices in favor of a healthier lifestyle. The question is are you willing to wait?

@@rimfire8217 The people who abstained did so because of environmental circumstances rather than an inability to get addicted to drugs. So when society collapses, hardship and other conditions that lead people to harmful forms of escape will continue to exist, causing another world of junkies. Up to and until a system of governance forms that enforces a non-drug lifestyle. Just like that you have government regulation, as only such a system can survive long term. So you'd end up with what we have today, but at the cost of massive suffering. If you want to go the evolutionary route, society would have to kill off the people who are susceptible to addiction (addiction here being a proxy for the human condition) for many tens (and probably hundreds) of thousands of years in order to actually meaningfully change the gene pool. So after countless millennia of unimaginable human suffering you get a chance of a society where social issues are worked out. To answer your question: No, I am not willing to wait, and anyone that is willing is either ignorant, stupid, spiteful, or straight up evil. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of basic game theory and the social dynamics that derive from it. EDIT: I'd be surprised if there isn't a game theory based refutation of Hayek's argument.

Lol thank you regardless

Why do you disagree with Hayek?

Saying that tastes and opinions can be (perfectly) predicted because marketing exists is like saying that weather is (perfectly) predictable because meteorology and weather forecasting exist. They are probabilistic estimations based on vague and general tendencies, while a big part of the picture remains unpredictable; that's why forecasting and commercials very often fail to achieve their goal.

@@maclinkastex3059 Probability is a science based on law - if you can allocate a probability to something it means it has meccanics which can be predicted - There is an absolute that can be detected and thats what marketing does - just as metereology does it with the weather. Logic implies the absolute and the meccanics that can be used to predict it - hayek is not worth considering.

@@lorenzocapitani8666 "...if you can allocate a probability to something it means it has meccanics which can be predicted..." Well, no. It precisely means that the exact mechanism is not known, or, if known, it currently cannot be used to correctly predict an event, and therefore you are confined to best-guess estimates; that is what a probability is, an estimation. If you generally disagree with Hayek on political or economic matters, that is not a good reason to dismiss every single one of his opinions. A person that is wrong about everything would be almost as rare as a person who is right about everything.

@@maclinkastex3059 The mecchanics might not be known but if statistics is used (which is a mecchanic to predict) it means that the mecchanics are there! It is predictable - statistics - probability (which is a mathematical science taught in high school) is a mecchanic used to predict that which has mecchanics and is thus predictable even if at the moment you do not have a precise law to predict it - if there was no law you would not be able to use statistics - LOGIC - Else you would have anarchy (not chaos, but anarchy) which cannot be predicted by statistics for it lacks a mecchanic because of the definition of anarchy. The reason why I state Hayek is a waste of time is because through logic I just proved his affermation to be FALSE. Its not an issue of opinion, its and issue of Logic and Science - Giving credit to hayek is like giving credit to someone that says the earth is flat, even once you show him a picture of the earth as an irregular spheroid, something that is out of order and non decent (thus, for that reason, to be avoided).

@@lorenzocapitani8666 "...even if at the moment you do not have a precise law to predict it..." That is precisely Hayek's idea about the social sciences. Economics cannot perfectly account for the needs of each individual and each industry precisely because you, as an economic planner, do not know the full picture in order to calculate a present or future optimal distribution of resources; so, at best, you are confined to mere estimations. Even if you want to stretch the concept of "probability" until it can be called a "law," that doesn't really adress the problem that Hayek points out. Deterministic laws and probabilistic "laws" are very different, even if you want to call them by the same name.