colonel@gloria.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) (07/08/85)
["In the service of Virman Vundabar we learn perfection!"] > > 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). Socialists generally feel that the production of material wealth is efficient enough now. They are more interested in distributing material wealth and producing non-material wealth (e.g., nursing care, public transport). Apart from political beliefs, many people want laws governing anything they disapprove of. This approach ought to appeal to those who think of people as interdependent, but it doesn't always work that way. -- Col. G. L. Sicherman UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel CS: colonel@buffalo-cs BI: csdsicher@sunyabva
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/11/85)
>/* colonel@gloria.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) / 11:19 am Jul 8, 1985 */ >Socialists generally feel that the production of material wealth is >efficient enough now. They are more interested in distributing >material wealth and producing non-material wealth (e.g., nursing >care, public transport). If this is the case, then they make a fundamental error in assuming that the switch from a decentralized market controlled economy to one in which wealth is "distributed" will not affect the efficiency of that economy in a drastically adverse way. >Col. G. L. Sicherman Mike Sykora
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (07/12/85)
> >/* colonel@gloria.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) / 11:19 am Jul 8, 1985 */ > > >Socialists generally feel that the production of material wealth is > >efficient enough now. They are more interested in distributing > >material wealth and producing non-material wealth (e.g., nursing > >care, public transport). > > >Col. G. L. Sicherman > > If this is the case, then they make a fundamental error in assuming > that the switch from a decentralized market controlled economy to > one in which wealth is "distributed" will not affect the efficiency > of that economy in a drastically adverse way. > > Mike Sykora It not at all clear that they necessarily assume that there will be no adverse effect, although they have historically been over-optimistic about it. They may simply be willing to sacrifice economic efficiency to achieve their objectives. Baba