Dennis wrote: >Hi Keith, Harry, Arthur et al, > >I beg to differ with axiom 1. > >I believe that there are some people whose desires are unlimited >and others who are more content with what they have. There is a >continuum in this respect. If everyone's desires were unlimited >we would be continually at war and this is clearly not the case.
That's a large jump. Why do you think that "unlimited desires" means that we would be continually at war? I would think that your "content" friend would anxiously desire peace so his contentment is uninterrupted. I assume too that though he has eaten today, he will desire to eat tomorrow and take the necessary steps. >True, some folks realize that acting on their desires can lead to >bad results. And others may have only altruistic desires. To >draw conclusions from your axiom may be very difficult due to >the great variance in what those desires are in individual cases. You'll recall that I said that after people have satisfied the very basic desires (survival) , their desires can take off in any direction. I also said we don't know what their desires may be, though we can deduce some of them by their actions. Actually people can be very skillful at knowing what another's desires may be. However, that isn't our concern. All we need to know is that a person's desires are unlimited. >DENNIS: To draw macro-economic conclusions from a set of individualistic >desires seems unwise. Each person acts from self interest in such >diverse ways. How can we build institutions based on such a broad >and shifting foundation. Who drew macro-economic conclusions? I certainly didn't, so it must be you. On the other hand I would ask why do we want to build institutions? If we do, perhaps we should try to understand the building blocks of institutions before we build them. >DENNIS: Perhaps I am saying that although axiom may be true, so what! >It may not be a useful concept. Well, right away, it shows that involuntary unemployment is impossible. That should be of interest to FutureWorkers. If we all worked 24 hours a day, seven says a week, we couldn't satisfy the unlimited desires of all of us. So our question must change from "How do we find people work?" to "Why are people without work?" If we come up with the right question, we may get the right answer. We might also wonder why we are trying to find work for "least exertion" people - people who sensibly are trying to reduce the work necessary to satisfy their desires. Most important, with these two assumptions about people, we begin the study of Man by putting to one side the assumptions we have previously made that Man is unpredictable, violent, and a willing customer of the seven deadly sins. Oh, and Dennis, #2 - the least exertion principle - is perhaps his easiest way to satisfy more of those unsatisfiable desires. >I do buy into axioms 2 through 4 however. > >Dennis Paull > >At 01:00 AM 3/15/2002 Friday , Keith wrote: > >Hi Harry, > > > >Before pushing off for a short holiday break I suggested that a third axiom > >could be added to Harry Pollard's basic two: > > > >1. People's desires are unlimited > >2. People seek to satisfy their desires with the least exertion > >3. People have a curiosity beyond present needs for survival > > > >Then Arthur Cordell came up with a fourth: > > > >(AC) > >>>>> > >How about a fourth? Humans are meaning seeking creatures. We are > >taxonomists. One of the ways in which we find meaning is to order and > >label things. Another way in which we find meaning is to "discover" > >self-evident truths. A sort of benchmarking. A way of providing building > >blocks for whatever intellectual edifice we are seeking to build. > >>>>> > > > >. . . which could be summarised as: > > > > 4. Humans are meaning-seeking creatures. > > >[snip]
