 | | Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened? —Simon Denscombe
|
| | | (...) In all fairness Communism is defendable from first principles yet is always said to be bad. I agree with the ideal of communism but not Marxism. In an ideal communism state there is no tax, no unemployment. I've missed out on most of this (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) In all fairness Communism is INdefensible from first principles, if you accept the rights based principle that people have the right to maximum freedom, or the utilitarian principle that we should strive for the system that produces the (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened? —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | (...) There you go again, mixing theory with practice. In _theory_, someone/some committee _with all the information_ making decisions can do better (as measured by the utilitarian principle) than the free market. Much in the same way that in (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) No. Nice try though. (...) So you're conceding the rights based argument, then? Good. (...) No. In THEORY it's impossible for any finite committee to outperform (that is, out allocate) the market, unless they have more information than the (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened? —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | (...) Says who? The mere fact that I choose to make a post focusing on one side of the argument does not mean I concede the other. Far from it. The trouble is, we both start from opposite views of what is a right and what is not, and therefore, (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
