mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (07/17/85)
>>Laws should be the minimum >>that permits society to function both freely and efficiently. We can >>argue about the means to that end, but I think that both libertarians >>and socialists on the net would agree on the objective (fundamentalists >>might not). > >This is indeed the view of utilitarians and libertarians , but I don't see >how socialists fit in. It seems to me that they wish to introduce laws >promoting their own moral agenda, quite apart from considerations >of freedom and efficiency (I assume you mean efficiency in the production >of material wealth). > >>Martin Taylor > > Mike Sykora Of course I don't mean efficiency JUST in the production of material wealth. That's another place where we disagree on evaluative criteria. I mean efficiency in promoting all those nebulous things that go to make high quality of life -- generally friendly interactions, clear air and clean water, sufficient goods at reasonable prices, few slums, ... generally happy people. I doubt very much that the society that produces the most MATERIAL wealth will be the one with the highest quality of life (although it might turn out that way, if you total the production over millennia rather than single lifetimes, since I suspect that the high quality-of-life society will be the most stable.) Does willingness to include criteria other than total material production mean that I am promoting my own moral agenda? Does refusal to consider other criteria mean you are promoting yours? -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt