"John S. Denker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Eric Rescorla quoted Slate:
> http://slate.msn.com/id/46376/
> > Here's a stylized example: Suppose some people (call
> > them the "prudes") cherish their freedom of religion, but not
> > half so much as they would cherish a general ban on
> > pornography. Others (call them the "lewds") cherish their
> > right to read Lady Chatterley's Lover but not half so much as
> > they would cherish a general ban on religion. Then if you
> > outlawed both pornography and religion, you'd make everyone
> > happier, while simultaneously making everyone less free.
>
> Is that supposed to be a conundrum? Is that
> supposed to cause headaches for economists
> or anybody else?
This did in fact cause headaches when Amartya Sen made this point.
The original paper is considered a classic of the economics
literature. It's in, for instance, Moser's "Rationality in
Action".
-Ekr
--
[Eric Rescorla [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
http://www.rtfm.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
