Hayek has been discussed several times in Economic Freedom about the theory of knowledge, but forgive me by saying this but does Hayek substantiate the subsitutions of knowledge? Probably because I am writing this late at night, I am probably losing much if any part of an argument but I will proceed. As economists or even philosophers with varied perspectives, could we agree that by loss of informal knowledge people ( sorry to Professor Eubanks) as an aggregate be subsituted with persuasion ( which could lead to popularity)? It seems that this lack of familiarity of ourselves and what we want contributes to this loss of knowledge besides providing others needs at the expense of others should ( normative) be placed in the context of logic of what we do know and the process of logic ( no Modus Ponens here just hypothetical syllogisms- never mind just mindless rant). But its not, it seems unusually reminiscent of high school and elections of student president or prom queen and king in the respect of popularity.
If an individual cannot make their decisions due to many choices wouldn't it make sense to use popularity as a temporary filabuster or a indirect series of choices. Am I hinting that many people do not want to make choices?- Yes. But do they want to make choices to benefit themselves?- Yes. So wouldn't making decision in this context mean limited choices for an individual? - Yes if the individual cannot understand their opportunities. So assuming persuasion is indeed the substitution of some informal knowledge than perhaps that is the problem with people relying on government.
Could logic be replaced instead of persuasion ( since I am assuming persuasion is harmful to an individual in this blog) ? I would guess that logic could not be entirely rectified in the loss of knowledge ( b/c that is part of the reason Hayek brings it up in the first place). So perhaps there is a level of logic and persuasion ( that I for some reason want to seperate as different entities) that will always exist together.
If I include incentives into the mix on limiting choices either through buyer,government and seller incentives, the one creating the incentives ( pick a party/ country) is limiting the choices of the citizens but under what guise or goal?
Perhaps the problem lies in the understanding that a group of individuals that have some authority can seperate the means and the ends of a problem and that infromal knowledge cannot relate to a formal action.