From: Jeff Bone (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Aug 16 2000 - 16:41:35 PDT
Brian Atkins wrote:
> You have decided (or are at least taking the position) that there can be
> no objectively correct decision as to what is best to do with your money
> (if you had some). That's fine, but I come down on the other side.
Objectivity is really a thorny thing. I'm willing to entertain any reasonable
objective argument in this direction, but it would have to be grounded in
something abstract, formal, and logical --- say, game theory. There's a pretty
reasonable argument to be had for eleemosynary behavoir (ahem, pretensions) ---
even in a capitalist framework --- merely on the basis of game theory. But
that's a far cry from saying "it's *wrong* to spend money on a MiG when people
are starving." I'm a moral relativist. Just shoot me. ;-)
> No point
> in taking this discussion further. But remember, there are 150k plus people
> dying every day you spend flying your Mig around.
Natural selection. If they aren't smart enough to move where the food is,
well, c'est la vie.
Aside: yeah, I know how outrageous that statement is. I specialize in taking
unpopular, outrageously extreme positions and defending them toungue-in-cheek.
BTW, it's Larry's MiG, not mine. I'm not advocating his choices, just his
right to make them --- just as nobody should have anything to say about what
you do with your $1/70thB. When people start allocating other people's
resources, it's a slippery slope to ideological and literal tyranny.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 16 2000 - 17:00:10 PDT