Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!dmcanzi
From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: free trade
Message-ID: <1761@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 16-Oct-85 05:35:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1761
Posted: Wed Oct 16 05:35:59 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Oct-85 00:33:20 EDT
References: <2518@watcgl.UUCP> <13@ubc-cs.UUCP> <2530@watcgl.UUCP> <19@ubc-cs.UUCP> <2559@watcgl.UUCP> <227@uthub.UUCP> <1702@dciem.UUCP>
Reply-To: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 23
Summary: 

In article <1702@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes:
>                                   It may be a little subtle for some
>folks (see net.politics.theory for examples), but "society" is more than
>a disconnected set of taxpayers.  There are different possibilities
>of benefit for society and for taxpayers (even including those who
>pay zero tax among the set of "taxpayers").  Society includes organization,
>and the health of society usually, but not necessarily, reflects in
>the welfare of its members (much as the health of a biological body
>reflects usually but not necessarily in the welfare of its constituent
>parts).

Perhaps it's too subtle for me, too.

Either the "good of society" can be defined as some kind of aggregate
measure of the good of society's members, or it can be defined as some
other thing which may sometimes conflict with the good of society's
members.  You seem to favour the latter.  I don't understand how you
can define the "good of society" except in terms of the good of its
members.
-- 
David Canzi

There are too many thick books about thin subjects.