Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:45:40 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@%IHateSpam%novera.com
|
Viewed:
|
982 times
|
| |
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote:
>
> 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.
No. Nice try though.
> In _theory_, someone/some committee _with all the information_ making
> decisions can do better (as measured by the utilitarian principle)
So you're conceding the rights based argument, then? Good.
> than the free market. Much in the same way that in theory, investors
> should be able to do better than the stock market.
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 market does, which is impossible unless they know exactly what
each participant wants, which is impossible unless they are omniescent.
Red Von Mises or Hayek for the proof. And they didn't even have Shannon
to lean on, you can construct another proof just using information
theory.
> In practice, it's of course near-impossible.
Since it's theoretically impossible, it's also practically impossible,
not just near impossible.
You're to be forgiven. Paraphrasing Churchill, anyone who isn't a
liberal (using the british party definitions) at 20 is heartless...
anyone who isn't a conservative by 30 is brainless. Didn't you just turn
20?
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
