Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site inmet
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!drutx!mtuxo!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxr!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ima!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: The Dead are all Equal
Message-ID: <28200740@inmet>
Date: Sat, 15-Mar-86 23:35:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200740
Posted: Sat Mar 15 23:35:00 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Mar-86 21:04:10 EST
Lines: 23
Nf-ID: #N:inmet:28200740:000:951
Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!janw    Mar 15 23:35:00 1986


[Ronald Dworkin, quoted by Richard Carnes]
>.... In either case, he chooses a mixed economic system --
>either redistributive capitalism or limited socialism -- not in order
>to compromise antagonistic ideals of efficiency and equality, but to
>achieve the best practical realization of the demands of equality
>itself.  ...

So, efficiency is not even a consideration: equality (of  distri-
bution)  is  all.  It  doesn't matter how much each citizen gets,
provided they all get the *same*.

A system that produces *nothing* will automatically be best then:
you can only divide zero into equal parts. 

What Dworkin should favor is not "mixed economy", but  total  an-
nihilation:  *life*  itself  is a good that is always *unequally*
distributed, both in duration and intensity. Death  makes equal.

Not even Egalite ou la Mort - Egalite *et* la Mort should be the
motto of a Dworkin "liberal". (Assuming he could be consistent).

			Jan Wasilewsky