>It implies that necessity is the highest principle, that is what is >wrong with it.
You need to explain your objection to "necessity." Seems to me that the rational person will first do the necessary and then do the unnecessary as time and resources permit. Is this some con/neocon argument for standing by why others die? The other person's necessary is your unnecessary. So: "Your problem is not my problem." >If all a human deserved is what they need, what is the motivation for >the human animal to produce more than they need if they will be >prevented by government from keeping it? Why do you define "need" so narrowly in this context, but when it comes to your "need" avarice seems to have no bound? ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
