cher@ihlpm.UUCP (Mike Cherepov) (02/28/85)
> Now. I am not a Libertarian. I am not a Capitalist. Nor am I a Socialist, > Communist, or any other "-ist" you care to throw at me. I think all > economic systems that exist are bullshit because they fail to measure the > success of an economy by the ONE THING THAT REALLY MATTERS: the standard of > living of those under the system. They all go on and on about how our > system (unlike the evil Brand X) accomplishes this or that philosophical > objective of dubious value. What a waste. I do not see the value of this view: 1) Standard of living is whatever you care to label as such. 2) As the things that comprise it REALLY MATTER to somebody they are nothing more then dubious values to others. Please specify the distinction. I feel that economic systems are very meaningful manifestations of human development (well, like religions). Call them bullshit is oversimplification. > If not, then why does the right of property take > precedence over the right to live? The answer here would be dependent on a particular social system and respondent's level of compassion. Under US economic conditions and on my level of compassion: You are talking about tightly controlled system of relief which ensures that every destitute person gets their minimum of nutrition, medical attention, etc.(what is "minimum"? - how do I know). It is available to everyone upon demonstration of need. In other words - It is what welfare should ideally be. Note: Not a universal suggestion - the good scheme for Ethiopian conditions would differ. If nonideal court finds that hard case #1 was stealing just to get their minimum - not more (due to superwelfare negligence) - let them go. Anyway, this time I am uncertain about Tim Maroney's goals - surely some of existing systems are better then others. No matter what Tim means by standard of living, it can not be uniform throughout the world. The better models can be further improved. Also: the dogma of better "standard of living" as a yardstick can be just as badly misused as anything else (unless that "standard" is defined completely and unequivocally, as well as ways of achieving it). Mike Cherepov