So, efficiency is not even a consideration: equality (of distri-
bution) is all. It doesn't matter how much each citizen gets,
provided they all get the *same*.
A system that produces *nothing* will automatically be best then:
you can only divide zero into equal parts.
What Dworkin should favor is not "mixed economy", but total an-
nihilation: *life* itself is a good that is always *unequally*
distributed, both in duration and intensity. Death makes equal.
Not even Egalite ou la Mort - Egalite *et* la Mort should be the
motto of a Dworkin "liberal". (Assuming he could be consistent).
Jan Wasilewsky
Easy, big fella! In context, it seemed to me to mean not that
"efficiency is not even a consideration", but that the application
of the alleged liberal ideal should of itself preclude brute
redistributionism, even without considerations of efficiency.
>A system that produces *nothing* will automatically be best then:
>you can only divide zero into equal parts.
>
>What Dworkin should favor is not "mixed economy", but total an-
>nihilation: *life* itself is a good that is always *unequally*
>distributed, both in duration and intensity. Death makes equal.
Yes, Jan. And hate makes blind.
Baba