The economics of free choice
abacus
> "abacus" <abacu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ce9f3a02.03082...@posting.google.com...
> > I'm sorry, I don't have time to compose a complete response to your
> > thoughtful post. My work load has just increased dramatically, so I'm
> > not as much time as previously to converse. However, I did want to
> > make a few commments.
> >
> > "fred & michele" <heal...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:<bi0l0i$3...@dispatch.concentric.net>...
> >
> > > I see both sides to the question of regulating substances like tobacco,
> > > alcohol, cocaine, even heroin. While the consequences of illness &
> > > addiction physically belong to the user, society as a whole *is*
> burdened
> > > by the financial cost of treatments for these consequences & lost
> > > productivity. It is a balance of freedom & cost to the public that
> probably
> > > satisfies few.
> >
> > I find the economic arguments for allowing individuals freedom of
> > choice to be very convincing. While it's not obvious at first glance,
> > the mathematics indicate that optimum good for society can only be
> > achieved by allowing individuals the ability to make those decisions
> > for themselves. Have you studied that aspect of it at all?
>
> I disagree. I mean, if left to my own devices, I would not pay taxes. I
> would go 100 mph on the highway. Landlords would increase their rent
> astronomically. Insiders at companies would sell stocks before they announce
> that they are going bankrupt.
>
> (...)
>
> Jeff
Ah, I see you haven't studied that aspect of it at all. Still, I
suppose I could have phrased it a bit better. Let me try again,
I find the mathematical analysis put forward by those espousing the
libertarian POV that free choice leads to the best overall outcome for
society as a whole more convincing than any argument I have heard for
supporting mandates and regulation of personal decisions like the ones
we've been discussing.
Albert Wagner
abacu...@yahoo.com (abacus) wrote:
> "Jeff Utz" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<bi3cl6$b...@library2.airnews.net>...
<snip>
> > I disagree. I mean, if left to my own devices, I would not pay
> > taxes. I would go 100 mph on the highway. Landlords would increase
> > their rent astronomically. Insiders at companies would sell stocks
> > before they announce that they are going bankrupt.
> Ah, I see you haven't studied that aspect of it at all. Still, I
> suppose I could have phrased it a bit better. Let me try again,
>
> I find the mathematical analysis put forward by those espousing the
> libertarian POV that free choice leads to the best overall outcome for
> society as a whole more convincing than any argument I have heard for
> supporting mandates and regulation of personal decisions like the ones
> we've been discussing.
Perhaps the problem is that you have been swayed by a "mathematical
analysis" rather than a study of human nature. Free choice means just
what it says. Choose to cooperate or not. I've never heard a valid
libertarian argument for how to deal with those that choose not to
cooperate, other than "shoot them."
Jeff Utz
What about people who are making choices without all the knowledge? I mean,
without any knowledge of whether vaccines work or not, why would one get the
vaccines? What about people who have poor knowledge of vaccines, like people
who read and believe the antivaccine web sites without realizing the
antivacs don't have a clue?
What about cases where the person can gain from everyone's losses? For
example, say I own land next to a nature preserve. Perhaps the best use of
the land for the population would be for me to donate the land to the nature
preserve. However, the best use of the land for my own benefit is putting up
a mini-mall with restaurants, gas station, food store, etc. Now, what you
expect me to do?
This is not an abstract concept. It has been faced over and over again when
one gains by using resources even the population at large is better off is
those resources are conserved. It is seen areas where people are best off
conserving water and not letting particular areas be farmland. Needless to
say, the people who are doing the farming would rather it be used for
farming.
There is another mathematical argument for mandates. There is a mathematical
puzzle called the "prisoner's dilemma." In the prisoner's dilemma, the
prisoner who squeals on other prisoners comes out ahead, but, on average,
prisoners come out ahead if no one squeals. The strategy that comes out on
top is the society (prisoners) mandating that no one squeal. If one squeals,
they squeal on him. Tit-for-tat. You can find out more about this in
Scientific American magazine.
Another example of mandates is paying highway and road taxes. If it were not
for this mandate to pay for taxes, who do you think would build and maintain
roads? I am sorry, but I would like to see this mathematical analysis. I
suspect that it is just fancy math that obfuscates the issue.
Jeff
abacus
> > choice to be very convincing. While it's not obvious at first glance,
> > the mathematics indicate that optimum good for society can only be
> > achieved by allowing individuals the ability to make those decisions
> > for themselves. Have you studied that aspect of it at all?
>
> assessmentsa of what id good for them. If you get a good number of people
> making bad decisions they go right out the window.
Whereas, here we have a man who has read about that aspect, but didn't
understand it.
> > The problem here is that individuals who choose to accept risks
> > voluntarily are not given the option of doing so with the penalty of
> > having to pay the price on their own. I'm not sure how to deal with
> > this particular problem, but I'd like to hear others' ideas.
>
> I have no problem with people assuming risks and then paying the price on
> their own. When a parent is making the decision for the child it is the
> child who pays the price.
True. But there are risks involved with every choice. When the
government makes the decision, it is still the child who pays the
price. Who is more likely to make better decisions about an
individual child?
> > > Once again the question arises over whether the people whose money pays
> for
> > > the consequences of the individual's choice is entitled to any input.
> Or
> > > are they expected to simply pull out their wallets & pony up the $$$$?
> >
> > The main concern that I have with this particular argument is that it
> > applies quite well to lots of other behaviors - like smoking tobacco,
> > eating too much, not exercising, etc. Do you really want to open the
> > door to having society exert legal control over those behaviors
> > because they are *footing the bills* for health problems caused by
> > obesity and smoking? Can you think of a logical way to differentiate
> > between what behaviors it's reasonable to control by such laws and
> > what behaviors it is not?
>
> I agree with you and that is why I find the arguments about hospital bills
> and EMS etc to be weak in reagrds to seatbelt laws and helmets. There are
> just too many other closely releated examples that we cannot legislate and
> no way to distinguish them. I think one useful distinction is when your
> decision directly affects other people. Not wearing yuor own seatbelt may
> not affect others directly but failure to restrain or force the use of
> helmets in your kids will directly affect them. Similarly, the decision not
> to vaccinate has direct effects on the others around them.
> > I'm not sure that a compromise regarding rules that affect everyone is
> > going to be possible between folks like JG and Jeff. I'm currently
> > pondering the feasibility for people to choose what laws they wish to
> > live under such as depicted in "Snow Crash" by Neil Stephenson (I
> > think I spelled that right).
>
> I once had a lawyer tell me that a good compromise leaves both sides a
> little dissatisfied.
Roger Schlafly
> Whereas, here we have a man who has read about that aspect, but didn't
> understand it.
No surprise -- CBI is an innumerate.
> > When a parent is making the decision for the child it is the
> > child who pays the price.
> True. But there are risks involved with every choice. When the
> government makes the decision, it is still the child who pays the
> price. Who is more likely to make better decisions about an
> individual child?
The parents. Physicians sometimes have trouble with the concept
because they are trained in a very authoritarian manner.
Jeff Utz
"Roger Schlafly" <rog...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:vYv1b.2795$z22.46...@twister1.starband.net...
> "abacus" <abacu...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > Whereas, here we have a man who has read about that aspect, but didn't
> > understand it.
>
> No surprise -- CBI is an innumerate.
Really? What has CBI ever said about math that is incorrect? And who was it
who said that the rotavirus vaccine caused a statistically significant
increase in the rate of intussecption, but was unable to tell us the name of
the statistical test?
> > > When a parent is making the decision for the child it is the
> > > child who pays the price.
> > True. But there are risks involved with every choice. When the
> > government makes the decision, it is still the child who pays the
> > price. Who is more likely to make better decisions about an
> > individual child?
>
> The parents. Physicians sometimes have trouble with the concept
> because they are trained in a very authoritarian manner.
Really. Can you show us data that show that parents make better decisions
about vaccinations than doctors?
Tsu Dho Nimh
>> The mathenatical models only work if the individuals are making accurate
>> assessmentsa of what id good for them. If you get a good number of people
>> making bad decisions they go right out the window.
Thyre is absolutely no way anyone has time or knowledge to
research all the options and pick the best one.
Tsu
--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré
Jeff Utz
news:pj7dkvkc4nj5ujuko...@4ax.com...
> abacu...@yahoo.com (abacus) wrote:
>
>
> >> The mathenatical models only work if the individuals are making
accurate
> >> assessmentsa of what id good for them. If you get a good number of
people
> >> making bad decisions they go right out the window.
>
> Thyre is absolutely no way anyone has time or knowledge to
> research all the options and pick the best one.
Correct. A group of experts in a particular field, most of whom are
physicians who have a well-rounded knwoledge of physiology and pathology and
most of whom are experts in the field of vaccines or immunology or
infectious disease would be able to make better decisions than lay people.
Just like I would expect a laywer to be able to make better legal decisions
than I would.
Jeff
D. C. Sessions
> True. But there are risks involved with every choice. When the
> government makes the decision, it is still the child who pays the
> price. Who is more likely to make better decisions about an
> individual child?
Those with the best information. In areas where individual
variations are significant *AND* those variations are apparent
to people close to them, that would be parents (a good example
is educational direction.)
Immunology doesn't fit either criterion.
--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end
Robert Vienneau
abacu...@yahoo.com (abacus) wrote:
> > > I find the economic arguments for allowing individuals freedom of
> > > choice to be very convincing. While it's not obvious at first
> > > glance,
> > > the mathematics indicate that optimum good for society can only be
> > > achieved by allowing individuals the ability to make those decisions
> > > for themselves. Have you studied that aspect of it at all?
The math says exactly the opposite.
"A bad nomenclature (Pareto-optimum) in the literature, together
with much carelessness in textbooks, often misleads people into
thinking that there is some theorem which claims that a
competitive equilibrium is socially optimal. There is no such
claim...
...For instance, there are many accounts to be found that a
free-trade equilibrium is Pareto-efficient for the world as a
whole. Very rarely do these textbooks spell out completely
and precisely what is required to reach this result, in
particular, absence of increasing returns and a complete set
of Arrow-Debreu markets. If these assumptions were stated and
discussed, they might be less inclined to declare free trade
'optimal'".
-- Frank Hahn, "General Equilibrium Theory", in "The Crisis
in Economic Theory". Basic Books, 1981.
"Hahn, in The Notion of Equilibrium in Economics (1973), argues
that Arrow-Debreu equilibria have a negative usefulness, because
they help us understand what the world would have to look like
in order for certain contentions to be acceptable, e.g. that
real economies are Pareto-efficient: he argues that Arrow-Debreu
theory shows that in order to obtain Paretian efficiency there
ought to exist complete contingent intertemporal markets, and
thus - since these markets do not exist - the claim that real
economies are Pareto-efficient is falsified. This argument is
far from fully convincing; but even conceding to Arrow-Debreu
theory some ngative usefulness of this kind, the really
important question remains totally unanswered: how do real
economies work?"
-- Fabio Petri, "Professor Hahn on the 'Neo-Ricardian'
Criticism of Neoclassical Economics", in "Value,
Distribution and Capital: Essays in Honour of
Pierangelo Garegnani". Routledge, 1999.
Vaccinations have an important dimension of non-excludability
and externalities. So, if one wanted to be guided by "the
mathematics", one who understood "the mathematics" woould
not have written in this context what "abacus" writes above
(assuming I have the context right).
--
Try http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/Bukharin.html
To solve Linear Programs: .../LPSolver.html
r c A game: .../Keynes.html
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau
abacus
> "Tsu Dho Nimh" <tsudh...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
> news:pj7dkvkc4nj5ujuko...@4ax.com...
> > abacu...@yahoo.com (abacus) wrote:
> >
> >
> > >> The mathenatical models only work if the individuals are making
> accurate
> > >> assessmentsa of what id good for them. If you get a good number of
> people
> > >> making bad decisions they go right out the window.
> >
> > Thyre is absolutely no way anyone has time or knowledge to
> > research all the options and pick the best one.
>
> Correct. A group of experts in a particular field, most of whom are
> physicians who have a well-rounded knwoledge of physiology and pathology and
> most of whom are experts in the field of vaccines or immunology or
> infectious disease would be able to make better decisions than lay people.
>
> Just like I would expect a laywer to be able to make better legal decisions
> than I would.
>
> Jeff
If your lawyer was also reaping significant rewards from doing
business with the party that was opposing you, you wouldn't be able to
trust his judgement because while he might have superior knowledge he
also might NOT have your best interests as his primary goal in making
those decisions. Likewise, we have a similar problem with the bias of
the experts who are making vaccine policy recommendations. In the
end, I trust the people who are most likely to have the best interests
of the child at heart more than I do experts in the field.
abacus
> In article <ce9f3a02.03082...@posting.google.com>,
> abacu...@yahoo.com (abacus) wrote:
>
> > > > I find the economic arguments for allowing individuals freedom of
> > > > choice to be very convincing. While it's not obvious at first
> > > > glance,
> > > > the mathematics indicate that optimum good for society can only be
> > > > achieved by allowing individuals the ability to make those decisions
> > > > for themselves. Have you studied that aspect of it at all?
>
> The math says exactly the opposite.
Given your reputation with those on this newsgroup whom I respect, I
must conclude that I am on the right tract. Thanks.
Jonah Thomas
> If your lawyer was also reaping significant rewards from doing
> business with the party that was opposing you, you wouldn't be able to
> trust his judgement because while he might have superior knowledge he
> also might NOT have your best interests as his primary goal in making
> those decisions. Likewise, we have a similar problem with the bias of
> the experts who are making vaccine policy recommendations. In the
> end, I trust the people who are most likely to have the best interests
> of the child at heart more than I do experts in the field.
This is a serious problem. Expertise is not enough and good will is not
enough. Unless you can find one person that you are sure has both, your
results will be quite uncertain.
Roger Schlafly
> > those decisions. Likewise, we have a similar problem with the bias of
> > the experts who are making vaccine policy recommendations. In the
> > end, I trust the people who are most likely to have the best interests
> > of the child at heart more than I do experts in the field.
> This is a serious problem. Expertise is not enough and good will is not
> enough. Unless you can find one person that you are sure has both, your
> results will be quite uncertain.
You may not find such a person. The best solution is to let the
parents decide, and let them use the best available info.
Roger Schlafly
> The math says exactly the opposite.
No, it doesn't. You've posted some quotes to the effect that
the real world deviates somewhat from the economic models.
Of course it does. Nevertheless, individual free choice nearly
always gives a better result than planned economies. Both theory
and practice prove it.
> Vaccinations have an important dimension of non-excludability
> and externalities. So, if one wanted to be guided by "the
> mathematics", ...
The conclusion is still that individual free choice works best.
Robert Vienneau
> Robert Vienneau <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote in message
> news:<rvien-0DDFB2....@news.dreamscape.com>...
> > In article <ce9f3a02.03082...@posting.google.com>,
> > abacu...@yahoo.com (abacus) wrote:
> > > > > I find the economic arguments for allowing individuals freedom of
> > > > > choice to be very convincing. While it's not obvious at first
> > > > > glance,
> > > > > the mathematics indicate that optimum good for society can only
> > > > > be
> > > > > achieved by allowing individuals the ability to make those
> > > > > decisions
> > > > > for themselves. Have you studied that aspect of it at all?
> > The math says exactly the opposite.
> Given your reputation with those on this newsgroup whom I respect, I
> must conclude that I am on the right tract. Thanks
It would be in vain to ask "abacus" what he is talking about. How
could my "reputation" change whether or not Debreu (1959) proves
the first and second Welfare theorems in a model with complete
contingent intertemporal markets? What does my "reputation" have
to do with whether or not one obtains some benefit if one's
neighbors are vaccinated?
"A bad nomenclature (Pareto-optimum) in the literature, together
with much carelessness in textbooks, often misleads people into
thinking that there is some theorem which claims that a
competitive equilibrium is socially optimal. There is no such
claim...
...For instance, there are many accounts to be found that a
free-trade equilibrium is Pareto-efficient for the world as a
whole. Very rarely do these textbooks spell out completely
and precisely what is required to reach this result, in
particular, absence of increasing returns and a complete set
of Arrow-Debreu markets. If these assumptions were stated and
discussed, they might be less inclined to declare free trade
'optimal'".
-- Frank Hahn, "General Equilibrium Theory", in "The Crisis
in Economic Theory". Basic Books, 1981.
--
David Wright
That second half is the real killer -- the idea that all parents will
go out an use the "best available info." Instead, they might
unwittingly use something like your lamentable "FAQ" and conclude that
they, like you, should find flimsy excuses for not vaccinating their
own kids, then pray that everyone else *does* vaccinate, thus allowing
them to be the same sort of parasite you are.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
Eric Bohlman
news:DCP1b.811$OF3...@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com:
>>You may not find such a person. The best solution is to let the
>>parents decide, and let them use the best available info.
>
> That second half is the real killer -- the idea that all parents will
> go out an use the "best available info." Instead, they might
> unwittingly use something like your lamentable "FAQ" and conclude that
> they, like you, should find flimsy excuses for not vaccinating their
> own kids, then pray that everyone else *does* vaccinate, thus allowing
> them to be the same sort of parasite you are.
Even if they've got the best of intentions, the fact is that parents tend
to deal with potential risks to their children emotionally rather than
rationally. Protecting one's children was an important function long
before the cerebral cortex evolved much, so it tends to be a midbrain
function. That's why, for example, one of the classic propaganda
techniques for stirring up hatred against a group is to claim that they
pose a threat to children; it gets parents to think emotionally rather
than rationally. In the absence of complete knowledge, parents will go
with whatever is the most emotionally compelling. And all too often that
means going with whoever has the best salesmanship. Plus, we all have a
built-in bias that causes us to perceive the risk of doing something as
greater than it actually is, and the risk of not doing something as less
than it actually is.
Roger Schlafly
> than rationally. In the absence of complete knowledge, parents will go
> with whatever is the most emotionally compelling. And all too often that
> means going with whoever has the best salesmanship. Plus, we all have a
So parents hear emotional arguments for and against vaccines.
They also hear emotional arguments about where to live, what
to eat, whom to vote for, etc. They still manage to make reasonable
decisions.
Eric Bohlman
But those latter arguments don't have to do with their children's *safety*,
which is where the limbic system tends to override the cortex far more than
in matters of residence, eating, or politics. The latter decisions don't
involve balancing competing *fears*.
D. C. Sessions
> Even if they've got the best of intentions, the fact is that parents tend
> to deal with potential risks to their children emotionally rather than
> rationally. Protecting one's children was an important function long
> before the cerebral cortex evolved much, so it tends to be a midbrain
> function. That's why, for example, one of the classic propaganda
> techniques for stirring up hatred against a group is to claim that they
> pose a threat to children; it gets parents to think emotionally rather
> than rationally. In the absence of complete knowledge, parents will go
> with whatever is the most emotionally compelling. And all too often that
> means going with whoever has the best salesmanship. Plus, we all have a
> built-in bias that causes us to perceive the risk of doing something as
> greater than it actually is, and the risk of not doing something as less
> than it actually is.
Keep in mind that that emotional response also tends to heavily
color how we weigh facts, so that even those (very) few in
posession of "complete facts [1]" won't necessarily come to
objectively justifiable conclusions.
Considering the amount of effort and expertise that goes into
making usable sense of those "complete facts," it's very
telling that anyone would seriously propose that each and
every parent take the time to master them before making
life-and-death decisions about their children.
[1] Rog has often complained that researchers haven't forwarded
him their complete datasets, including personal identifying
details. Free, of course.
jonah thomas
I tend to agree with you. Since parents have a direct stake in their
children, the result is at least that when they mess up they get a lot
of the consequences themselves. "Think of it as evolution in action."
Perhaps it would be even better, for children who're 8 years old or
older, to let the children themselves make the best informed choice they
can. By the same logic that says the parents have the child's best
interest at heart, we can say that the children themselves definitely
have their best interest at heart.
If we admit that we don't really know about long-term consequences of
things like vaccines, then it would follow that for the society as a
whole it's wrong to force people to get vaccinated. Better to prevent a
random half of the people from getting vaccinated, until we get enough
data to actually see what's happening. If half-vaccinated is not enough
to prevent occasional outbreaks among the unvaccinated half then we'd
get more data about the nature of the disease also, which is definitely
a good thing. If, over a generation or two, the advantages of
vaccination when half the population is vaccinated are obvious, then we
could gradually increase the percentage who are allowed access to
vaccines up to say 95%.
Rue The Day
You're wasting your time arguing with someone who understands neither
the math nor the economic theory underlying his belief. It's pretty
clear that abacus read somewhere that a free market always produces
the optimal outcome under all conditions, and now he's just repeating
it mindlessly without understanding why.
CBI
on
> > their own. When a parent is making the decision for the child it is the
> > child who pays the price.
>
> True. But there are risks involved with every choice. When the
> government makes the decision, it is still the child who pays the
> price. Who is more likely to make better decisions about an
> individual child?
In many cases the parent. In some cases the government. Especially so in
cases where there really isn't a legitimate decision to make. This is not
such an unusual concept. We all accept that there are things we do not grant
the parent the right to decide in regard to the raising of the child (abuse,
basic care like feeding, education, etc). We are really only discussing
where to draw the line, not whether to draw it.
--
CBI, MD
CBI
news:vYv1b.2795$z22.46...@twister1.starband.net...
> "abacus" <abacu...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > Whereas, here we have a man who has read about that aspect, but didn't
> > understand it.
>
> No surprise -- CBI is an innumerate.
This comming from the mathematician who doesn't understand basic logic or
statistics.
--
CBI, MD
CBI
>
>
> >> The mathenatical models only work if the individuals are making
accurate
> >> assessmentsa of what id good for them. If you get a good number of
people
> >> making bad decisions they go right out the window.
>
> Thyre is absolutely no way anyone has time or knowledge to
> research all the options and pick the best one.
.....on every subject (except Rog and JG, of course).
--
CBI, MD
CBI
"David Wright" <wri...@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:DCP1b.811$OF3...@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <8YO1b.2934$qp3.49...@twister1.starband.net>,
> Roger Schlafly <rog...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >You may not find such a person. The best solution is to let the
> >parents decide, and let them use the best available info.
>
> That second half is the real killer -- the idea that all parents will
> go out an use the "best available info." Instead, they might
> unwittingly use something like your lamentable "FAQ" and conclude that
> they, like you, should find flimsy excuses for not vaccinating their
> own kids, then pray that everyone else *does* vaccinate, thus allowing
> them to be the same sort of parasite you are.
All? How about even a few? If a person with a graduate level degree who has
done extensive research* can't get it right what chance does an auto
mechanic without the interest to do the research have?
--
CBI, MD
* Assuming that reading The Eagle Forum counts as extensive research.
CBI
news:3F47F725...@cavtel.net...
> If we admit that we don't really know about long-term consequences of
> things like vaccines, then it would follow that for the society as a
> whole it's wrong to force people to get vaccinated.
Huh? Most of the vaccines we are using have been around for decades.
> Better to prevent a
> random half of the people from getting vaccinated, until we get enough
> data to actually see what's happening. If half-vaccinated is not enough
> to prevent occasional outbreaks among the unvaccinated half then we'd
> get more data about the nature of the disease also, which is definitely
> a good thing.
We already have that data. We saw plenty of the natural history of the
diseases and we know that for most of the vaccines we need coverage of about
90% or greater to prevent outbreaks.
--
CBI, MD
jonah thomas
> "jonah thomas" <j2th...@cavtel.net> wrote
>>If we admit that we don't really know about long-term consequences of
>>things like vaccines, then it would follow that for the society as a
>>whole it's wrong to force people to get vaccinated.
> Huh? Most of the vaccines we are using have been around for decades.
Yes, but we don't really have adequate control groups.
>>Better to prevent a
>>random half of the people from getting vaccinated, until we get enough
>>data to actually see what's happening. If half-vaccinated is not enough
>>to prevent occasional outbreaks among the unvaccinated half then we'd
>>get more data about the nature of the disease also, which is definitely
>>a good thing.
> We already have that data. We saw plenty of the natural history of the
> diseases and we know that for most of the vaccines we need coverage of about
> 90% or greater to prevent outbreaks.
Yes, so if we did make it illegal for a random half of the population to
get vaccinated we *would* have outbreaks in the unvaccinated half.
Within 2 generations the risks on either side should become obvious to
everybody. While it would be politically better to let people who
didn't want to be vaccinated but could, switch places with people who
did want to be vaccinated but couldn't, that would mess up the study
because they'd differ in nonrandom ways.
I guess it's impractical to do large-scale testing. Too bad.
Robert Vienneau
Schlafly" <rog...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> "Robert Vienneau" <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote
> > The math says exactly the opposite.
> No, it doesn't. You've posted some quotes to the effect that
> the real world deviates somewhat from the economic models.
I have not posted any quotes suggesting that existing deviations
from the assumptions of certain models (for example, the
non-existence of some markets) have a neglible effect on the
conclusions. In fact, a good reader of those texts who understands
the math referred to would infer nearly the opposite.
> Of course it does. Nevertheless, individual free choice nearly
> always gives a better result than planned economies. Both theory
> and practice prove it.
False dichotomy.
"Attempts to generalize simple family's or related families'
habit formation to large-group polities - a la utopian
experimental cults or in the Lenin-Stalin and Mao pattern
have not hitherto succeeded in organizing production with
approximate Pareto-Optimality efficiency features. Gradual
evolution toward near laissez-faire market mechanism
responding to individual's self-interest, history suggests
and advanced economic theory second guesses, will incur
areas of market failure and will generate and perpetuate
considerable degrees of economic and political inequalities.
Just as there is no asymptotic communist utopia, neither is
an asymptotic laissez-faire utopia."
-- Paul A. Samuelson, "A Modern Post-Mortem on Bohm's
Capital Theory: Its Vital Normative Flaw Shared by
Pre-Sraffian Mainstream Capital Theory". Journal of
the History of Economic Thought. 2001.
> > Vaccinations have an important dimension of non-excludability
> > and externalities. So, if one wanted to be guided by "the
> > mathematics", ...
> The conclusion is still that individual free choice works best.
No indication is provided that such a conclusion reflects any
such guidance.
David Wright
Exactly. The idea that everyone will go out and have the time and
materials and intelligence to research every issue is idiotic -- but
that doesn't stop people like Roger from insisting that it's true.
>* Assuming that reading The Eagle Forum counts as extensive research.
Now, now -- at least the Eagle Forum is against the horrid USA PATRIOT
act.
Roger Schlafly
> I guess it's impractical to do large-scale testing. Too bad.
We could simply give people free choice. If large numbers of
people are skeptical about vaccines and refuse them, then we
could compare the vaccinated kids to the unvaccinated kids.
Not as good as a random sample, but better than nothing. If
the experience results in a consensus, so much the better.
Roger Schlafly
> > No, it doesn't. You've posted some quotes to the effect that
> > the real world deviates somewhat from the economic models.
> an asymptotic laissez-faire utopia."
> -- Paul A. Samuelson, "A Modern Post-Mortem on Bohm's
You like to quote leftist economists who are ideologically
opposed to free markets. What is your point?
jonah thomas
One trouble with that approach is that when enough people do get
vaccinated it tends to protect the ones that don't, too.
So they are exempt from whatever risks there are to the vaccine and they
get the benefits of the others who do take those risks.
It's vaguely similar to saying that we should give people free choice
about whether to pay taxes or not.
On the other side, an imperfect vaccine can stop epidemics if it's given
universally. If it cuts the chance of infection from 10% per exposure
to 1% per exposure, that might be enough that the disease dies out
instead of spreading explosively. But when there are enough
unvaccinated people present to have the epidemic anyway then many of the
vaccinated would get sick too.
So it isn't just a matter of individual choice and individual
consequences. You benefit if I get vaccinated, I may suffer if you
don't. Once we get it established how many people must be vaccinated to
stop an epidemic, then it makes some sense to make sure that many people
get vaccinated. We have a technology that can stop epidemics, it's
worth a lot to stop them, and free choice is beside the point until we
get a better technology.
Here are some more vague analogies:
You don't give every dutchman his share of the dike and tell him it's
his own free choice whether to maintain it.
Once when I was in grad school I lived in housing that had very very bad
mosquitoes. Any time I went outside hundreds of mosquitoes went after
me, and when I went inside five or six would get in with me. After
awhile I went into the tiny fenced back hard and found some big garbage
cans full of liquid with many thousands of mosquitoes breeding in them.
I emptied them. Hurray! The problem would soon be over! That night
I mentioned it to the guy in the next apartment. He got mad. "My
angelfish depend on those mosquitoes! How are they going to eat if you
kill their food?" I figure, if he kept the tanks screened and stuck his
own arm in there to be bitten it would be OK. But he had no right to
grow hundreds of thousands of mosquitoes and release them to bite
whoever they found. How he lives that doesn't affect me is his choice.
When he makes me itch he's got to answer to me.
When we know how many vaccinations it takes to stop an epidemic, and we
know that the vaccinations are mostly harmless, then it's OK to let a
few people slip by provided it isn't too many. It isn't acceptable to
let too many people have free choice, if they choose wrong.
Roger Schlafly
> When we know how many vaccinations it takes to stop an epidemic, and we
> know that the vaccinations are mostly harmless, then it's OK to let a
> few people slip by provided it isn't too many. It isn't acceptable to
> let too many people have free choice, if they choose wrong.
Suppose it takes a 90% vaccination rate to stop a measles epidemic,
and under free choice 95% get vaccinated, and under mandatory
vaccination 99% get vaccinated. Then what would you say?
It is possible to construct hypothetical scenarios in which it seems
like people need to be forcibly vaccinated for their own good.
But where are the examples involving real world diseases today?
I haven't heard any.
Jonah Thomas
> "jonah thomas" <j2th...@cavtel.net> wrote
>>When we know how many vaccinations it takes to stop an epidemic, and we
>>know that the vaccinations are mostly harmless, then it's OK to let a
>>few people slip by provided it isn't too many. It isn't acceptable to
>>let too many people have free choice, if they choose wrong.
> Suppose it takes a 90% vaccination rate to stop a measles epidemic,
> and under free choice 95% get vaccinated, and under mandatory
> vaccination 99% get vaccinated. Then what would you say?
Then I'd tend to say let the 1% slip by. Probably more than that slip
by by accident now. It's very hard for a whole society of americans to
do anything at better than 99% efficiency.
> It is possible to construct hypothetical scenarios in which it seems
> like people need to be forcibly vaccinated for their own good.
> But where are the examples involving real world diseases today?
> I haven't heard any.
We're discussing hypothetical examples, aren't we?
Jonah Thomas
You're assuming these are economists who're opposed to free markets
because their ideology demands it, rather than economists who don't
universally recommend free markets because their research fails to
support the ideology that free markets are universally ideal.
I note that actual markets almost always include a "market-maker" to
improve their efficiency. This is clear empirical evidence that
unregulated markets do not work well. It's an open question what kind
of regulation is best.
Rue The Day
> "jonah thomas" <j2th...@cavtel.net> wrote
> > When we know how many vaccinations it takes to stop an epidemic, and we
> > know that the vaccinations are mostly harmless, then it's OK to let a
> > few people slip by provided it isn't too many. It isn't acceptable to
> > let too many people have free choice, if they choose wrong.
>
> Suppose it takes a 90% vaccination rate to stop a measles epidemic,
> and under free choice 95% get vaccinated, and under mandatory
> vaccination 99% get vaccinated. Then what would you say?
And what if, under free choice, only 85% were vaccinated?
> It is possible to construct hypothetical scenarios in which it seems
> like people need to be forcibly vaccinated for their own good.
> But where are the examples involving real world diseases today?
> I haven't heard any.
You haven't heard any, because the government (in the US at least)
requires children to be vaccinated in order to be admitted into
school.
abacus
I'm not sure who is claiming that free markets are universally ideal.
The work I've found convincing shows that free markets can be expected
to perform better than non-free markets. Could you cite the
empirical evidence you are referring to? This is an area I find of
interest. Thanks.
Roger Schlafly
> > It is possible to construct hypothetical scenarios in which it seems
> > like people need to be forcibly vaccinated for their own good.
> > But where are the examples involving real world diseases today?
> > I haven't heard any.
> You haven't heard any, because the government (in the US at least)
> requires children to be vaccinated in order to be admitted into
> school.
Many countries in Europe and elsewhere do not have mandatory
vaccination. Furthermore, some US states are very liberal about
granting exemptions, while others are not. This experience has
shown that mandatory vaccination is not necessary to maintain
vaccination levels that are sufficiently high to prevent epidemics.
Roger Schlafly
> > You like to quote leftist economists who are ideologically
> > opposed to free markets. What is your point?
> You're assuming these are economists who're opposed to free markets
> because their ideology demands it, rather than economists who don't
His web site promotes Keynes, Marx, Engels, and Galbraith.
Pulling some out-of-context quotes denouncing free markets
does not impress me very much. They are widely discredited
as economists, and their political views are nutty.
> I note that actual markets almost always include a "market-maker" to
> improve their efficiency. This is clear empirical evidence that
> unregulated markets do not work well. It's an open question what kind
> of regulation is best.
Why don't you visit some regulated economies, and let me know if you
find one that works as well as having free markets?
jonah thomas
> "Jonah Thomas" <j2th...@cavtel.net> wrote
>>I note that actual markets almost always include a "market-maker" to
>>improve their efficiency. This is clear empirical evidence that
>>unregulated markets do not work well. It's an open question what kind
>>of regulation is best.
> Why don't you visit some regulated economies, and let me know if you
> find one that works as well as having free markets?
I've been satisfied by reading that many forms of strict regulation get
in the way.
Would you point me to an unregulated economy to compare against? I
haven't had much luck at finding one so far.
ro...@telus.net
Appropriately enough, there have been some recent news reports that
inadequate voluntary vaccination rates for, IIRC, measles in the UK
had resulted in significant epidemics.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<rog...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>So parents hear emotional arguments for and against vaccines.
>They also hear emotional arguments about where to live, what
>to eat, whom to vote for, etc. They still manage to make reasonable
>decisions.
Reasonable in the opinion of one who is, apparently, less than fully
reasonable himself...
I would not call eating decisions that result in a 40% obesity rate
reasonable. I would not call voting decisions that elect
self-evidently corrupt and incompetent candidates reasonable.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>If we admit that we don't really know about long-term consequences of
>things like vaccines, then it would follow that for the society as a
>whole it's wrong to force people to get vaccinated. Better to prevent a
>random half of the people from getting vaccinated, until we get enough
>data to actually see what's happening. If half-vaccinated is not enough
>to prevent occasional outbreaks among the unvaccinated half then we'd
>get more data about the nature of the disease also, which is definitely
>a good thing. If, over a generation or two, the advantages of
>vaccination when half the population is vaccinated are obvious, then we
>could gradually increase the percentage who are allowed access to
>vaccines up to say 95%.
The problem here is that the experiment is not really controlled. The
vaccines change from year to year as better ones are developed. And
some of the problems with vaccines have been blamed on a preservative
used to keep the vaccines stable so they can be stored for a longer
period of time, rather than the vaccination per se.
-- Roy L
Jeff
> the real world deviates somewhat from the economic models.
> always gives a better result than planned economies. Both theory
> and practice prove it.
Right. How about showing us the papers that support this view? Can you
explain how highways, bridges, electrical systems and sewer systems would
get built without government intervention?
> > Vaccinations have an important dimension of non-excludability
> > and externalities. So, if one wanted to be guided by "the
> > mathematics", ...
>
> The conclusion is still that individual free choice works best.
Again, support your conclusion.
Jeff
Jeff
> "Jonah Thomas" <j2th...@cavtel.net> wrote
> > > those decisions. Likewise, we have a similar problem with the bias of
> > > the experts who are making vaccine policy recommendations. In the
> > > end, I trust the people who are most likely to have the best interests
> > > of the child at heart more than I do experts in the field.
> > This is a serious problem. Expertise is not enough and good will is not
> > enough. Unless you can find one person that you are sure has both, your
> > results will be quite uncertain.
>
> parents decide, and let them use the best available info.
This is the present solution.
What info should parents use? Where is the best available info? And how much
info would you expect parents to try to digest before making a decision?
What about parents who are not smart or cannot read? What do you expect them
to do?
Jeff
Jeff
> "Eric Bohlman" <eboh...@earthlink.net> wrote
> > than rationally. In the absence of complete knowledge, parents will go
> > with whatever is the most emotionally compelling. And all too often
that
> > means going with whoever has the best salesmanship. Plus, we all have a
>
> So parents hear emotional arguments for and against vaccines.
> They also hear emotional arguments about where to live, what
> to eat, whom to vote for, etc. They still manage to make reasonable
> decisions.
So it is a matter of who makes the decisions, not how good those decisions
are?
Jeff
Are you sure this would be better than nothing? It could be worse.
Unvaccinated and vaccinated children might differ on their parent's economic
resources, educational level, language, intelligence as well as their own
nutrition, housing, ethnicity, schooling and access to medical care. These
differences could make such a comparison worse than no comparison. You
should take some classes on statistics and sampling and research methods.
Jeff
CBI
>
> I would not call voting decisions that elect
> self-evidently corrupt and incompetent candidates reasonable.
Bad example - most of us didn't vote for him.
--
CBI, MD
CBI
>
> >* Assuming that reading The Eagle Forum counts as extensive research.
>
> Now, now -- at least the Eagle Forum is against the horrid USA PATRIOT
> act.
I agree with the Eagle Forum on something? How will I ever get to sleep
tonight?
--
CBI
CBI
> CBI wrote:
> > "jonah thomas" <j2th...@cavtel.net> wrote
>
> >>If we admit that we don't really know about long-term consequences of
> >>things like vaccines, then it would follow that for the society as a
> >>whole it's wrong to force people to get vaccinated.
>
> > Huh? Most of the vaccines we are using have been around for decades.
>
> Yes, but we don't really have adequate control groups.
How about the people before the vaccines? You could claim confounders for a
few of them but after one repeats the same success time after time one
should start to suspect that it is the intervention.
> Yes, so if we did make it illegal for a random half of the population to
> get vaccinated we *would* have outbreaks in the unvaccinated half.
> Within 2 generations the risks on either side should become obvious to
> everybody.
We already have outbreaks in less immunized groups and the risks are obvious
to (almost) everybody.
> While it would be politically better to let people who
> didn't want to be vaccinated but could, switch places with people who
> did want to be vaccinated but couldn't, that would mess up the study
> because they'd differ in nonrandom ways.
Boy, you got me close to violating Godwin's law.
--
CBI, MD
CBI
Suppose you get outbreaks when the vaccination rate under the current system
drops to the low 90's%? No wait, that has already happened.
--
CBI, MD
Jonah Thomas
> "jonah thomas" <j2th...@cavtel.net> wrote
>>CBI wrote:
>>>"jonah thomas" <j2th...@cavtel.net> wrote
>>>>If we admit that we don't really know about long-term consequences of
>>>>things like vaccines, then it would follow that for the society as a
>>>>whole it's wrong to force people to get vaccinated.
>>>Huh? Most of the vaccines we are using have been around for decades.
>>Yes, but we don't really have adequate control groups.
> How about the people before the vaccines? You could claim confounders for a
> few of them but after one repeats the same success time after time one
> should start to suspect that it is the intervention.
It's clear that successful vaccines tend to protect the vaccinated from
particular diseases, and that when enough people are vaccinated the
disease doesn't spread person-to-person.
What isn't as clear is the side-effects of the vaccines. We see a few
acute effects in a very few people -- peculiar idiosyncratic immune
reactions etc. For a known significant disease these are not very
important -- even if a few people die of them many more people would
have suffered from the disease they prevent. We don't have the data to
be sure about possible more-subtle effects. Can a vaccine give you
cancer 20 years later? I see no theoretical reason to expect such
effects. Common sense says not to expect them. But we're risking the
whole population on the assumption that there isn't something there we
don't know which will hurt us.
It's common-sense to take that risk. Chances are nothing bad will
happen. And if by chance we do ourselves in or something, there are
nations that are too poor to do much immunising that could then spread
over the world to replace us. We mostly aren't risking the whole
species. But when you consider the stakes, what's at risk apart from
the apparent extremely odds that we'd lose -- don't you get a temptation
to do very-large-scale studies and only approve vaccines for general use
after the studies show they're mostly harmless?
Jonah Thomas
> "David Wright" <wri...@clam.prodigy.net> wrote
>>Now, now -- at least the Eagle Forum is against the horrid USA PATRIOT
>>act.
> I agree with the Eagle Forum on something? How will I ever get to sleep
> tonight?
You can't depend on anybody to get it wrong every single time.
David Wright
Comfort yourself with the thought that it's probably one of the signs
of the impending Apocalypse.
David Wright
Yet another oracular statement from Roger. And, as usual, it's
wrong. (Wishful thinking on his part, no doubt.)
Consider the experience in Scandanavia when pertussis vaccination
rates fell, or, more recently, in Germany in regions with lower
measles vaccination rates. In the former case, pertussis rates
skyrocketed; in the latter, there have been measles outbreaks. With
really contagious diseases, like measles, it doesn't take much to get
them rolling.
Roger Schlafly
> Consider the experience in Scandanavia when pertussis vaccination
Yes, consider it. They were using an inferior and ineffective vaccine.
Vaccinated kids were getting pertussis at much higher rates than
other countries. The authorities should have spotted the problem,
but didn't. The collective wisdom of the parents was apparently
greater, as they figured out that the vaccine was not working, and
they started rejecting it. Vaccination was not mandatory, so they had
the advantage of getting a market response to a problem. The parents
were right -- the vaccine was no good. The health authorities only
figured out what was going on when they were confronted with the
task of persuading the parents to voluntarily take the pertussis vaccine.
Then they learned that the vaccine was no good. The parents never went
back to that bad vaccine, either. They were only persuaded by the
importation of a better vaccine.
Robert Vienneau
Schlafly" <rog...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> "Robert Vienneau" <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote
> > > No, it doesn't. You've posted some quotes to the effect that
> > > the real world deviates somewhat from the economic models.
> > " Just as there is no asymptotic communist utopia, neither is
> > an asymptotic laissez-faire utopia."
> > -- Paul A. Samuelson, "A Modern Post-Mortem on Bohm's
> You like to quote leftist economists who are ideologically
> opposed to free markets.
Ignorant ad hominem. Apparently, Roger Schlafly doesn't know who
Frank Hahn and Paul Samuelson are.
> What is your point?
That the mathematics that "abacus" brought up shows that, given
complete contingent futures markets and other conditions, there
exists a (not necessarily unique, not necessarily stable)
competitive equilibrium.
That such an equilibrium, under those conditions, is Pareto efficient.
That the differences between actual economies and the assumptions
of such proofs have not been shown to have negligible effects on
the existence of a Pareto efficient equilibrium supportable
by unregulated markets. Rather the opposite.
That saying the choice is between complete central planning and
completely unregulated ("free") markets is a false dichotomy.
That one might very well have good reasons to prefer one's neighbor
to be vaccinated.
On the other hand, your point seems to be you cannot utter one
sentence that does not embody a fallacy of some sort or another.
--
Try http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/Bukharin.html
To solve Linear Programs: .../LPSolver.html
r c A game: .../Keynes.html
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau
Robert Vienneau
ruet...@outgun.com (Rue The Day) wrote:
> Robert Vienneau <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote in message
> news:<rvien-BD7116....@news.dreamscape.com>...
> > "A bad nomenclature (Pareto-optimum) in the literature, together
> > with much carelessness in textbooks, often misleads people into
> > thinking that there is some theorem which claims that a
> > competitive equilibrium is socially optimal. There is no such
> > claim...
> >
> > ...For instance, there are many accounts to be found that a
> > free-trade equilibrium is Pareto-efficient for the world as a
> > whole. Very rarely do these textbooks spell out completely
> > and precisely what is required to reach this result, in
> > particular, absence of increasing returns and a complete set
> > of Arrow-Debreu markets. If these assumptions were stated and
> > discussed, they might be less inclined to declare free trade
> > 'optimal'".
> > -- Frank Hahn, "General Equilibrium Theory", in "The Crisis
> > in Economic Theory". Basic Books, 1981.
> You're wasting your time arguing with someone who understands neither
> the math nor the economic theory underlying his belief. It's pretty
> clear that abacus read somewhere that a free market always produces
> the optimal outcome under all conditions, and now he's just repeating
> it mindlessly without understanding why.
No doubt you've seen that many posts around here are a waste of time.
Robert Vienneau
Schlafly" <rog...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> [Robert Vienneau's] web site promotes ... Marx [and] Engels...
> Pulling some out-of-context quotes denouncing free markets
> does not impress me very much. They are widely discredited
> as economists, and their political views are nutty.
One page on my web site includes the following quotes from Marx's
Capital:
"This sphere,...within whose boundaries the sale and purchase of
labour-power goes on, is in fact a very Eden of the innate rights of
man. There alone rule Freedom, Equality, Property, and Bentham.
Freedom, because both buyer and seller of a commodity, say of
labour-power, are constrained only by their own free will. They
contract as free agents, and the agreement they come to, is but
the form in which they give expression to their common will.
Equality, because each enters into relation with the other, as with
a simple owner of commodities, and they exchange equivalent for
equivalent. Property, because each disposes only of what is his own.
And Bentham, because each looks only to himself. The only force that
brings them together and puts them in relation with each other, is
the selfishness, the gain and the private interests of each. Each
looks to himself only, and no one troubles himself about the rest,
and just because they do so, do they all, in accordance with the
pre-established harmony of things, or under the auspices of an
all-shrewd providence, work together to their mutual advantage, for
the common weal and in the interest of all." (Chapter VI)
"So far as regards use-values, it is clear that both parties may
gain some advantage. Both part with goods that, as use-values, are
of no service to them, and receive others that they can make use of.
And there may also be a further gain. A, who sells wine and buys
corn, possibly produces more wine, with given labour time than
farmer B could, and B, on the other hand, more corn than wine-grower
A could. A, therefore, may get, for the same exchange value, more
corn, and B more wine, than each would respectively get without
any exchange by producing his own corn and wine. With reference,
therefore, to use-value, there is good ground for saying that
'exchange is a transaction by which both sides gain.'" (Chapter V)
On the other hand, the following quote from Marx and Engel's Communist
Manifesto is several clicks away from my Website:
"Modern industry has established the world market, for which the
discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense
development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This
development has, in turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in
proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in
the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital,
and pushed into the background every class handed down from the
Middle Ages...
...The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary
part...
...The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal
display of vigor in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much
admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence.
It has been the first to show what man's activity can bring about.
It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman
aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that
put in the shade all former exoduses of nations and crusades.
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the
instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production,
and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the
old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the
first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes.
Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of
all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation
distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed,
fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable
prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become
antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air,
all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face
with sober senses his real condition of life and his relations with
his kind.
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the
bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle
everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.
The bourgeoisie has, through its exploitation of the world market,
given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every
country. To the great chagrin of reactionaries, it has drawn from
under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood.
All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are
daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose
introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized
nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material,
but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose
products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the
globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of
the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the
products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and
national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every
direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material,
so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of
individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and
narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the
numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world
literature.
The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of
production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws
all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap
prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it forces the
barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate.
It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois
mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls
civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves.
In one word, it creates a world after its own image.
The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns.
It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban
population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a
considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life.
Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has
made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the
civilized ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the
East on the West.
The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered
state of the population, of the means of production, and of property.
It has agglomerated population, centralized the means of production,
and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary
consequence of this was political centralization. Independent, o
but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws,
governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one
nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class
interest, one frontier, and one customs tariff.
The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has
created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all
preceding generations together. Subjection of nature's forces to man,
machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam
navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole
continents for cultivation, canalization or rivers, whole populations
conjured out of the ground -- what earlier century had even a
presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of
social labor?"
But if Roger Schlafly, out of his vast ignorance, wants to call such
praise of "free" markets "nutty", what can I say?
Jeff
Can you provide data to support your views? Especially the stuff about how
the "common wisdom" of the people. I mean how do you know? What did the
parents do? Take surveys?
You make a good fiction writer.
Jeff
Tim Worstall
> > "jonah thomas" <j2th...@cavtel.net> wrote
>
> >>If we admit that we don't really know about long-term consequences of
> >>things like vaccines, then it would follow that for the society as a
> >>whole it's wrong to force people to get vaccinated.
>
> > Huh? Most of the vaccines we are using have been around for decades.
>
> Yes, but we don't really have adequate control groups.
>
> >>random half of the people from getting vaccinated, until we get enough
> >>data to actually see what's happening. If half-vaccinated is not enough
> >>to prevent occasional outbreaks among the unvaccinated half then we'd
> >>get more data about the nature of the disease also, which is definitely
> >>a good thing.
>
> > diseases and we know that for most of the vaccines we need coverage of about
> > 90% or greater to prevent outbreaks.
>
> Yes, so if we did make it illegal for a random half of the population to
> get vaccinated we *would* have outbreaks in the unvaccinated half.
> Within 2 generations the risks on either side should become obvious to
> did want to be vaccinated but couldn't, that would mess up the study
> because they'd differ in nonrandom ways.
>
>
You are correct in that we cannot do controlled large scale testing.
We can however make observations.
Compare and contrast the death rate from, say, measles, in the largely
vaccinated US or UK, with that in the largely unvaccinated sub saharan
africa.
At a gross level, the changes in child mortality over the past two
centuries have been almost exclusively from vaccination and water /
sewage improvements.
Tim Worstall
Tim Worstall
> On 21 Aug 2003 18:13:52 -0700
> abacu...@yahoo.com (abacus) wrote:
>
> > "Jeff Utz" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<bi3cl6$b...@library2.airnews.net>...
> <snip>
> > > I disagree. I mean, if left to my own devices, I would not pay
> > > taxes. I would go 100 mph on the highway. Landlords would increase
> > > their rent astronomically. Insiders at companies would sell stocks
> > > before they announce that they are going bankrupt.
>
> > Ah, I see you haven't studied that aspect of it at all. Still, I
> > suppose I could have phrased it a bit better. Let me try again,
> >
> > I find the mathematical analysis put forward by those espousing the
> > libertarian POV that free choice leads to the best overall outcome for
> > society as a whole more convincing than any argument I have heard for
> > supporting mandates and regulation of personal decisions like the ones
> > we've been discussing.
>
> Perhaps the problem is that you have been swayed by a "mathematical
> analysis" rather than a study of human nature. Free choice means just
> what it says. Choose to cooperate or not. I've never heard a valid
> libertarian argument for how to deal with those that choose not to
> cooperate, other than "shoot them."
You seem to have a slightly odd view of what Libertarianism is.
Absolutely no one outside Bakunin and such anarchists believes that
cooperation will not at some times have to be forced. And most
certainly not any Libertarians.
The argument is rather about those areas where cooperation is so
important to the functioning of the society that it is morally correct
to enforce that cooperation, and those where the freedom to choose is
more important.
An obvious example of the first is the criminal justice system. I and
others might argue about what constitutes a crime, but having reached
such agreement, sure, the answer is to capture, try and jail ( or
shoot if you prefer ) those who won't cooperate.
Any number of examples of the second......society has an interest in
healthy eating, but are we quite ready for a food police ?
A Libertarian would, in your question above, first ask, " Is this so
important that it is moral for me to enforce cooperation ? ".
In this matter the only difference between a Libertarian and a liberal
is how to define " so important ".
Tim Worstall
Albert Wagner
t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote:
<snip>
> An obvious example of the first is the criminal justice system. I and
> others might argue about what constitutes a crime, but having reached
> such agreement, sure, the answer is to capture, try and jail ( or
> shoot if you prefer ) those who won't cooperate.
> Any number of examples of the second......society has an interest in
> healthy eating, but are we quite ready for a food police ?
Depends on what you mean by "food police." Would it be a crime for a
canner/packager to lie about what chemicals are actually in a product?
Knowing that some are simply poison and others trigger hyperallergic
reactions in some? Would it be a crime for a meat processor to
distribute meat when it is known that certain safety precautions were
ignored in it's processing and that it is possibly contaminated with
harmeful bacteria?
>
> A Libertarian would, in your question above, first ask, " Is this so
> important that it is moral for me to enforce cooperation ? ".
> In this matter the only difference between a Libertarian and a liberal
> is how to define " so important ".
Right. The devil's in the details. All self-proclaimed Libertarians
that I have encountered consider the protection of their right to own
stuff the only thing "so important."
Happy Dog
> > Consider the experience in Scandanavia when pertussis vaccination
> > rates fell, ...
>
> Yes, consider it. They were using an inferior and ineffective vaccine.
> Vaccinated kids were getting pertussis at much higher rates than
> other countries. The authorities should have spotted the problem,
> but didn't. The collective wisdom of the parents was apparently
> greater, as they figured out that the vaccine was not working, and
> they started rejecting it.
I think you're making most of this up. So I'm asking you (he said,
understanding the futility of such a query) to provide your readers here
with evidence that this alleged event unfolded as you claim. I am certain
that you won't. I base this on previous experiences with you. And I can
provide ample evidence if you like.
le moo
Roger Schlafly
> > [Robert Vienneau's] web site promotes ... Marx [and] Engels...
> > Pulling some out-of-context quotes denouncing free markets
> > does not impress me very much. They are widely discredited
> > as economists, and their political views are nutty.
> One page on my web site includes the following quotes from Marx's
> On the other hand, the following quote from Marx and Engel's Communist
Yawn. No doubt you have a Marxist theory of vaccination up
your sleeve as well. Silly quotes from discredited and goofy
economists will not convince me that free choice is a bad thing.
Fredrik Nikala
> I think you're making most of this up. So I'm asking you (he said,
> understanding the futility of such a query) to provide your readers here
> with evidence that this alleged event unfolded as you claim. I am certain
> that you won't. I base this on previous experiences with you. And I can
> provide ample evidence if you like.
> le moo
>
>
The older sort of vaccine where used until 1979, were made of killed
bacteria and had, as noted, some undesired side effects. A new vaccine
is now used, starting from -96. -79 to -96 there were no general
pertussis vaccination in Sweden.
I'm no medical expert, so I have no clue what alternatives were
available in 1979.
Just my €0.02...
--
Right now: 17.2 degrees Celsius or 63.0 degrees Fahrenheit
jonah thomas
> "Robert Vienneau" <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote
> Yawn. No doubt you have a Marxist theory of vaccination up
> your sleeve as well. Silly quotes from discredited and goofy
> economists will not convince me that free choice is a bad thing.
Supposing it was true, could anything convince you of it including your
own personal experience?
Or is your mind entirely made up?
Roger Schlafly
> > Yawn. No doubt you have a Marxist theory of vaccination up
> > your sleeve as well. Silly quotes from discredited and goofy
> > economists will not convince me that free choice is a bad thing.
> Supposing it was true, could anything convince you of it including your
> own personal experience?
Both theory and empirical evidence shows that free choice in
vaccination is a good thing. I'd be happy to look at evidence
to the contrary. But quoting silly platitudes from goofballs like
Marx is meaningless. The quotes don't even have much
connection to the subject being discussed.
Robert Vienneau
Schlafly" <rog...@mindspring.com> wrote:
A quote from Karl Marx:
>> "exchange is a transaction by which both sides gain".
> ... Silly quotes from discredited and goofy economists...
David Wright
Roger Schlafly <rog...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>"David Wright" <wri...@clam.prodigy.net> wrote
>> Consider the experience in Scandanavia when pertussis vaccination
>> rates fell, ...
>
>Yes, consider it. They were using an inferior and ineffective vaccine.
>Vaccinated kids were getting pertussis at much higher rates than
>other countries.
Were they, now? Let's see your sources. In any event, they were
getting pertussis at much lower rates than unvaccinated kids. When
vaccination rates dropped, disease rates soared. This is a matter of
historical fact and is not subject to Schlafly spin.
>The authorities should have spotted the problem, but didn't. The
>collective wisdom of the parents was apparently greater, as they
>figured out that the vaccine was not working, and they started
>rejecting it.
Do you own a horse? Several of them? It's difficult for me to
believe that you could spread this much horse manure on m.h.a without
access to a steady supply.
They stopped vaccinating due to a fearmongering campaign; the idea
that "market forces" had anything to do with it is sheer fantasy on
your part.
>Vaccination was not mandatory, so they had the advantage of getting a
>market response to a problem. The parents were right -- the vaccine
>was no good.
Pfui. It may not have been as good as it could have been, but that's
miles (of your wishful thinking) from it being ineffective.
>The health authorities only figured out what was going on when they
>were confronted with the task of persuading the parents to
>voluntarily take the pertussis vaccine. Then they learned that the
>vaccine was no good. The parents never went back to that bad vaccine,
>either. They were only persuaded by the importation of a better
>vaccine.
This posting of Roger's exemplifies a number of his more unattractive
features: making things up and then asserting them as facts, combined
with trying to weasel away from the point of the previous posting, to
wit: reduced vaccination rates can and do occur, despite the "wisdom
of the parents," and this is invariably followed by a rise in disease
rates.
D. C. Sessions
Ah! That makes perfect sense: the vaccine was less effective,
so they decided that none at all was better. Of course, we don't
have any /other/ indication that the vaccine wasn't effective,
but that "collective wisdome" appears to have some sort of group
ESP which determined the ineffectiveness of the vaccine even
before any cases happened to disambiguate the probability functions.
--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end
David Wright
Given your prediliction for changing the subject when discussions
start to go against you, it's remarkably hypocritical of you to
criticize someone else for not-terribly-relevant quotes.
Non-physician, heal thyself.
Robert Vienneau
wri...@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote:
> In article <Gqu2b.6987$3C7.249...@twister2.starband.net>,
> Roger Schlafly <rog...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >But quoting silly platitudes from goofballs like
> >Marx is meaningless. The quotes don't even have much
> >connection to the subject being discussed.
> Given your prediliction for changing the subject when discussions
> start to go against you, it's remarkably hypocritical of you to
> criticize someone else for not-terribly-relevant quotes.
>
> Non-physician, heal thyself.
Roger Schlafly earlier indicated that he wanted to discuss
Marx, Engels, Keynes, and Galbraith. I went along.
If somebody were to tell me that Roger Schlafly often brings
up a topic and then declares it irrelevant, I would believe it.
Maybe Roger Schlafly's point is to encourage greater fish consumption.
He presents himself as a cautionary illustration of what happens if
you don't eat fish.
Is Paul Feyerabend a frequent topic of discussion on m.h.a?
Peter Bowditch
>Is Paul Feyerabend a frequent topic of discussion on m.h.a?
No, but his "no rules" approach to scientific enquiry would be very
acceptable to many of the alt supporters, as they, too, reject the
idea that knowledge can be gained by an iterative process of
observation, hypothesis generation, testing and hypothesis adjustment.
Actually, Feyerabend might be too conservative for some. A lot of alt
supporters seem to think that scientific enquiry consists of making an
observation, extrapolating it to all conditions and then saying that
the resulting hypothesis must be true because it has not been
falsified. Put another way, Feyerabend seemed to be saying "whatever
you can dream up might be true", whereas most alts would say "whatever
I can dream up must be true - prove me wrong".
--
Peter Bowditch pet...@ratbags.com
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
Tim Worstall
> On 25 Aug 2003 06:20:03 -0700
> t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote:
> <snip>
> > An obvious example of the first is the criminal justice system. I and
> > others might argue about what constitutes a crime, but having reached
> > such agreement, sure, the answer is to capture, try and jail ( or
> > shoot if you prefer ) those who won't cooperate.
> > Any number of examples of the second......society has an interest in
> > healthy eating, but are we quite ready for a food police ?
>
> Depends on what you mean by "food police." Would it be a crime for a
> canner/packager to lie about what chemicals are actually in a product?
> Knowing that some are simply poison and others trigger hyperallergic
> reactions in some? Would it be a crime for a meat processor to
> distribute meat when it is known that certain safety precautions were
> ignored in it's processing and that it is possibly contaminated with
> harmeful bacteria?
Apologies....I meant a food police that came round andarrested you for
not eating your 5 portions of fruit and veg each day....society does
have an interest in this as it is known to reduce cancer rates, and
thus medical costs ( especially in Europe where medical costs are
bourne by tthe State ).
>
> >
> > A Libertarian would, in your question above, first ask, " Is this so
> > important that it is moral for me to enforce cooperation ? ".
> > In this matter the only difference between a Libertarian and a liberal
> > is how to define " so important ".
>
> Right. The devil's in the details. All self-proclaimed Libertarians
> that I have encountered consider the protection of their right to own
> stuff the only thing "so important."
The classic definition of Libertariansim is , to paraphrase John
Stuart Mill, " My freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins
".
It is my right todo as I wish that is " so important ", limited only
by the way in which it impacts upon other people being able to do as
they wish.
Tim Worstall
Albert Wagner
> Stuart Mill, " My freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose
> begins". It is my right todo as I wish that is " so important ",
> limited only by the way in which it impacts upon other people being
> able to do as they wish.
Hi, Tim.
I agree with the above in principle. But, as noted before: "The devil's
in the details." In a highly integrated society, it is problematic
where my neighbors nose begins.
D. C. Sessions
> Albert Wagner <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in message news:<20030825112300.7...@tcac.net>...
> The classic definition of Libertariansim is , to paraphrase John
> Stuart Mill, " My freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins
> ".
>
> It is my right todo as I wish that is " so important ", limited only
> by the way in which it impacts upon other people being able to do as
> they wish.
The problem with that theory is that people slam their fists
together.
ro...@telus.net
<rog...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Silly quotes from discredited and goofy
>economists will not convince me that free choice is a bad thing.
Paul Samuelson can hardly be called a "discredited and goofy"
economist.
-- Roy L
D. C. Sessions
Sure he can. Look: Rog just did.
Now if you were to add a modifier such as "honestly" or
"accurately" ...
Roger Schlafly
> >Silly quotes from discredited and goofy
> >economists will not convince me that free choice is a bad thing.
> Paul Samuelson can hardly be called a "discredited and goofy"
> economist.
The Samuelson quote was that there is no "asymptotic
laissez-faire utopia". As a reason, he says it would have
"inequalities". Yes, an asymptotic laissez-faire utopia probably
would have some inequalities. Did someone say otherwise?
At any rate, it doesn't relate much to the subject at hand.
Tim Worstall
Indeed. I don't pretend that all the operating instructions for a
complex society are contained in such a trite phrase.
The legalisation or not of drugs and alcohol were mentioned earlier in
the thread. Using my triteness as a guide only,we come to the
following :
1) Alcohol. There are areas in the US which are dry. This is a
restriction of my freedoms for ( usually ) moralistic or religious
reasons, and so " bad " under my formulation. There are no areas of
the US where drunk driving is allowed. This is quite obviously an area
where my right to imbibe is impacting upon the freedom of others, and
so correct.
2) Drugs. It's my body, something I definately do own. I should be
able to pollute it in any way I wish, so long as it does not impact
upon others. With a few exceptions ( PCP for example ) drugs like
heroin, pot,E, cocaine , my consumption does not impact upon others.
It should therefore be legal for me to consume them.The external
effects that we do see, such as shared needles, AIDS, OD's, crime,
drug gangs and so on are side effects of the illegality, not the drugs
themselves. My freedom to consume drugs should be limited in the same
way that my freedom to smoke or drink is.....where and only where my
actions impact upon others and so limit their freedom. So driving
while drugged, causing Big Mac attacks in those who inhale my second
hand cannabis smoke.....these should be illegal, not the primary
consumption.
These are the sort of things that Libertarian ideals bring you
to.....nothing to do withownership as you can see, except in the sense
that I own my body.
Tim Worstall
Robert J. Kolker
Tim Worstall wrote:
> These are the sort of things that Libertarian ideals bring you
> to.....nothing to do withownership as you can see, except in the sense
> that I own my body.
While I share your libertarian twitches, I wonder if the consequences of
drug use isolated just to the user. For example, how does drug use
affect one's driving. Or will continued drug use lead a person to become
non-productive and a burden on others.
We live in a society where we don't just let people die (perhaps we
should, but we don't). So the usual libertarian arguments that one's
personal habits affect only the person, don't quite hold true.
If we kept people from driving if they are not alert and allowed them to
die if they became sick or unemployed and used up their own resources,
one would be able to make a stronger argument for the principle --- its
my body---.
Bob Kolker
>
> Tim Worstall
Robert Vienneau
Schlafly" <rog...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> <ro...@telus.net> wrote
> > Paul Samuelson can hardly be called a "discredited and goofy"
> > economist.
> [Erroneous irrelevancy - deleted.]
Paul Samuelson is a discredited and goofy economist. Even as
ad hominem, such a statement is mistaken.
Does Roger Schlafly now agree?
"Gradual evolution toward near laissez-faire market mechanism
responding to individual's self-interest, history suggests
and advanced economic theory second guesses, will incur
areas of market failure AND will generate and perpetuate
considerable degrees of economic and political inequalities.
Just as there is no asymptotic communist utopia, neither is
an asymptotic laissez-faire utopia."
-- Paul A. Samuelson (emphasis added)
Roger Schlafly
> Does Roger Schlafly now agree?
> "Gradual evolution toward near laissez-faire market mechanism
> responding to individual's self-interest, history suggests
> and advanced economic theory second guesses, will incur
> areas of market failure AND will generate and perpetuate
> considerable degrees of economic and political inequalities.
> Just as there is no asymptotic communist utopia, neither is
> an asymptotic laissez-faire utopia."
> -- Paul A. Samuelson (emphasis added)
That is a goofy and idiotic statement.
Jeff
(...)
> That is a goofy and idiotic statement.
Can you please explain what is wrong with the statement? Perhaps provide
references to back your view?
Otherwise, I question which is goofier and more idiotic: you or the
statement.
All the best,
Jeff
Roger Schlafly
> > That is a goofy and idiotic statement.
> Can you please explain what is wrong with the statement?
It says that evolution towards "near laissez-faire" will
incur some market failure. What is he trying to say?
That if the markets are imperfect, then some of the markets
won't be perfect? If so, that is a tautology. Or maybe he is
saying that anything that is not perfect laissez-faire will
have market failure? If so, then that is an argument in favor
of laissez-faire, not against.
Then he complains that asymptotic laissez-faire utopia will
have some inequalities. Guess what -- all societies have
inequalities. And certainly all free societies have inequalities.
I guess someone posted the quote in order to make an argument
that Samuelson is against asymptotic laissez-faire utopia, and
he is an authority on the subject, and therefore it is a bad
thing. But he is really saying that it doesn't exist because his
political views are such that it is not his idea of utopia. That
proves nothing. No one here was advocating asymptotic
laissez-faire utopia anyway.
Happy Dog
> "Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > > That is a goofy and idiotic statement.
> > Can you please explain what is wrong with the statement?
>
> It says that evolution towards "near laissez-faire" will
> incur some market failure. What is he trying to say?
> That if the markets are imperfect, then some of the markets
> won't be perfect? If so, that is a tautology.
I expect that you're enjoying this diversion. It takes away from your
argument that there is a great evil perpetuated by adherents to evidenced of
based medicine. Since you have left debates that don't go in your favour.
le m00
Tim Worstall
> Tim Worstall wrote:
> > These are the sort of things that Libertarian ideals bring you
> > to.....nothing to do withownership as you can see, except in the sense
> > that I own my body.
>
> While I share your libertarian twitches, I wonder if the consequences of
> drug use isolated just to the user. For example, how does drug use
> affect one's driving. Or will continued drug use lead a person to become
> non-productive and a burden on others.
I do address that point : Driving under the influence should continue
to be a crime.
>
> We live in a society where we don't just let people die (perhaps we
> should, but we don't). So the usual libertarian arguments that one's
> personal habits affect only the person, don't quite hold true.
I agree that they don't hold true entirely. Especially where there are
charity r Govt funded medical services, there is then some component
of cost to others of drug taking. Yet I would also point out that the
vast majority of drug costs come from their very illegality :
adulteration and inconsistent dosing.
The drug most worrying in Europe is heroin ....it's been pointed out
that if the National Health Service were to prescribe H to registered
addicts ( as they used to ) then a weeks supply of pahrmaceutically
pure H would be less than the 6 pounds or so charged for the
prescription. The NHS would make a profit on hte deal.
One could, and I do, argue that the lowering of costs on police,
jails, gang warfare, interdiction and the rest would be less than the
costs of treating an increase in addicts.
Tim Worstall
Jeff
> "Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > > That is a goofy and idiotic statement.
> > Can you please explain what is wrong with the statement?
>
> It says that evolution towards "near laissez-faire" will
> incur some market failure. What is he trying to say?
No, that laissez-faire is not perfect either.
> That if the markets are imperfect, then some of the markets
> won't be perfect? If so, that is a tautology.
No, that is you putting words in his mouth.
> Or maybe he is
> saying that anything that is not perfect laissez-faire will
> have market failure?
No, I think he is saying that laissez-faire itself is not perfect and with
laissez-faire, some people will be hurt.
> If so, then that is an argument in favor
> of laissez-faire, not against.
>
> Then he complains that asymptotic laissez-faire utopia will
> have some inequalities. Guess what -- all societies have
> inequalities. And certainly all free societies have inequalities.
I think he is saying that when a society gets to close to laissez-faire,
inequalities start to go up.
> I guess someone posted the quote in order to make an argument
> that Samuelson is against asymptotic laissez-faire utopia,
I disagree. I think someone posted this to make an arguement that
laissiez-faire itself is not utopia.
> and
> he is an authority on the subject, and therefore it is a bad
> thing. But he is really saying that it doesn't exist because his
> political views are such that it is not his idea of utopia. That
> proves nothing. No one here was advocating asymptotic
> laissez-faire utopia anyway.
I would love utopia, any type, if it existed on earth.
Jeff
>