Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Politics and Ethics--Socialism, Libertarianism, and Capitalism
Message-ID: <958@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Dec-85 08:27:46 EST
Article-I.D.: mmintl.958
Posted: Fri Dec 27 08:27:46 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 30-Dec-85 06:46:20 EST
References: <1547@hound.UUCP> <4340026@csd2.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 51


In article <4340026@csd2.UUCP> sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) writes:
>>/* franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) /  9:30 am  Dec 17, 1985 */
>
>>In practice, determining what the public good is is often quite difficult.
>>One must use such tools as judgement, compassion, and imagination.  Opinion
>>polls (including the formal ones called elections) are not worthless either.
>>The result is still imperfect.
>
>"Judgement" based on what criteria?
>Is "compassion" a tool?  Why should we assume compassion is good?
>Imagination may be useful in coming up with innovative solutions, but
>how is it useful in determining what the public wants?  (Note, I am assuming,
>based on your reference to opinion polls, that you see the public's desires
>as highly relevant to what the "public good" is.)
>
>The market has the advantage over opinion polls in that it can measure
>more accurately than opinion polls can the EXTENT of people's wants, as it
>forces people to put their money where their mouths are.

The market is limited to supplying goods where it is relatively easy to
assess who benefits from the transaction, and where the greatest part of
those benefits can be restricted to those who are willing to pay.  There
are goods where this is not the case.  These are called "public goods"
(confusing terminology, in this context).  They are generally regarded as
including schools, roads, parks, defense, and police protection, among
other things.

Judgement, imagination and compassion are used for precisely the purpose
you mention: attempting to estimate the extent of people's wants.

I will also note that there is a theoretical problem with the market as
a measure of the extent of people's wants; it weights people by how wealthy
they are.  Now this is possibly equitable for those who have made their
money themselves; but it is not equitable for those who inherited great
wealth.

(This may sound like sour grapes to some of you.  It isn't.  I'm doing
quite well, thank you.)

I favor a mixed economy, more capitalist than otherwise, such as we have
now in the U.S., because it works best at serving the public good.
Pragmatically, it has done better than any other system tried; and
theoretically, there is good reason to expect just that result.

>Originally, you said that the public good is just the aggregate of individual
>goods.  How are the individual goods combined if they conflict?

One weights them by how important they are to the individuals involved.

Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108