From: Jeff Bone (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Mar 03 2000 - 09:55:29 PST
Ick. Apologies for not following up my own thread before this, but I've been
trapped under something heavy. A few glib responses:
Dave sez: So, if a strategy is demonstrably efficient, then it's a right?
Not at all. However, distribution of resources among the population has to
happen in some fashion, and one assumes that the "most efficient" distribution
is in a sense the one that creates the greatest common good. If introducing
property rights is creates the most efficient distribution and hence the
greatest common good, it's a good thing.
Dave sez: If it's only a matter of avoiding plan interference...
These arguments are completely bogus. The whole "plan interference" argument
in the first place rests on the notion that all people have plans. Making
humans property or concentrating all planning ability in a sovereign person
breaks the assumption, not the argument.
Dave sez: How very Victorian. (re: the mentioned meme)
Yes, in some sense it looks a lot like "elan vital." But hey, I'm not making
this stuff up. Don't shoot the messenger. Check out   or a whole host
of other books.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 03 2000 - 10:00:05 PST