[snrplfth]

Well, that's a big weakness of these theories, I think. My question is not terribly complex or dependent on unusual or unrealistic situations.

I would also note that sometimes, people operating off a 'psychologist' basis like you've identified, misunderstand the critiques of others as being also 'psychologist'. For example, the Hayekian critique of central economic planning is often characterized as a psychological argument that "people are naturally selfish and greedy". Thus, if you can get them to stop being so selfish, the objection is overcome. However, what the critique is actually about is inherent limits to knowledge and information, which would apply regardless of psychology.

[throwaway729]

> My question is not terribly complex or dependent on unusual or unrealistic situations.

No, usually the psychological arguments are needed to hand-wave away crucial but obvious problems.

> Well, that's a big weakness of these theories

No, it's not. It's perhaps their most important insight.

I mean, IMO they're wrong, but the insight about the need for a psychological aspect is important and correct.

Libertarians and especially anarcho-capitalists need similar psychological arguments (the fact that they often hand-wave over this need not-withstanding).

[snrplfth]

Let me clarify: I'm saying that the "well, your objections are just psychological" aspect is the weakness. Sure, to have a psychological theory is fine, but too often it drifts into essentially "objections to our theory are merely based in the same psychological malformation that is produced by the current system - therefore when we get rid of the system, the objections will go away too". This is a weakness, I think.

[throwaway729]

Ah, I see. Yes, I agree with you on that.

Except maybe there's a system for which that's really true, and you and I prevent us from ever getting to that system because we reject arguments like this on the basis of form? Oh dear ;-)