Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 10:21:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1131 times
|
| |
|
|
On Sun, 4 Jul 1999 19:52:51 GMT, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net>
wrote:
> 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 greatest goods for the greatest number
> (depending on which starting point you wish for defense, rights or
> utilitarian)
>
> Communism is only rights based defensible from first principles if you
> accept that you are your brother's keeper, for the maximal set of
> brothers. And there is no utilitarian defense possible. Period. It just
> doesn't work as an economic or political system. Mixed systems can limp
> along, but the closer you get to pure communism the harder it craters.
> However, mixed systems that move closer to pure capitalism get better
> instead of worse. We are better off now in the world than we were 20
> years ago and it's precisely because the pendulum has swung a bit.
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 theory, investors
should be able to do better than the stock market.
In practice, it's of course near-impossible.
Jasper
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
