Let's Embrace David Friedman's New Dining Custom

Comment on David Friedman's blog entry A New Dining Custom

***********************************

@PowerChild...I'm chuckling because you listed the eating accessories for David. Was that really necessary? Do you think David is a stranger in a strange land? He's not familiar with our bizarre customs and strange devices? Oh no, I'm still chuckling. I wonder if David copied the list for future reference. I can imagine that the next time he sits down to eat he'll whip out your list to make sure that he is fully accessorized. :D

It reminds me of a facebook group messaging discussion that a few of my friends and I were participating in.  Two ladies were discussing vibrators.  One is a fan of them while the other never uses them.  Here's the relevant snippet...

Jennifer Connelly: Pocket rocket is great it goes brerrrrrrrrrddr
Lol
Natalie Portman: I'm familiar with the device
I just don't need it

I think David is familiar with our eating devices...which is why it's funny that you listed them.  hehe.  Never mind me I'm just being ridiculous.

@Simon, yes! You're drunk! Me too! Not really though.

My database has four entries with the word "marriage"...one by Edward Burnett Tylor, one by Frédéric Bastiat, one by Friedrich Nietzsche and one by this fine fellow...

It is one thing to postulate universal rationality in human decision-making; it is another thing (and, in our view quite unjustified) simply to assume as an empirical matter that all human decisions are at all times universally arranged in equilibrium patterns. (To assume that no married person could change mates and become better off thus appears as a totally unjustified and unrealistic assumption, thoroughly undermining the usefulness of the "economic approach" to the marriage "market".) - Israel M Kirzner, The Driving Force of the Market: Essays in Austrian Economics

Regarding David's dinner ...is there a seating arrangement that would have provided the maximum amount of value?  Well...it stands to reason that no two seating arrangements are equally valuable.  David can't possibly derive the same exact amount of value from two different people.  Therefore, some arrangements are more valuable than other arrangements.  But the only way to determine the most valuable arrangement is to give people the opportunity to determine how much value they derive from each and every person there.  With this in mind...I support David's new dining custom.  And I'm not just supporting it because I want David to endorse pragmatarianism.  Nope.  Not even a little bit.