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: <1770@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 19-Oct-85 05:05:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1770
Posted: Sat Oct 19 05:05:56 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Oct-85 04:02:53 EDT
References: <2518@watcgl.UUCP> <13@ubc-cs.UUCP> <2530@watcgl.UUCP>
Reply-To: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 37
Summary: 

>> >                                   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. ...
*   ... Society includes organization,
*   and the health of society usually, but not necessarily, reflects in
*   the welfare of its members... [Martin Taylor]
	(The '*'s mark some text that John Chapman deleted in his reply.)
>> 
>> 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]
>
>                          ... when you make some kind of sacrifice
>(e.g. paying more in taxes than you recieve *directly* back in goods
>or services) you are not necessarily losing "good" or really making
>a sacrifice.  The difference between what you give and what you
>recieve directly back may be used to promote certain features of
>life/society in general - you benefit if society's wellbeing is
>increased because you live in that society. [John Chapman]

If one defines a measure of the "good of society" as an aid in
government decision making, it will be possible to improve this "good
of society" function in ways that are detrimental to some of society's
members.  This is not what concerned me about Martin's article.

The sentence I reinserted was the main thing I was reacting to in
Martin Taylor's article.  It's vague and *could* mean that he feels
that the good of society can be pursued in ways that are not good for
any of society's members.  I would like to be reassured that he doesn't
really believe that...
-- 
David Canzi

There are too many thick books about thin subjects.