On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 6:09 PM, David B. Shemano <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't know. How would you define winners and losers in your system? Jim > Devine's post is intriguingly definitional: if a 51% majority in a socialist > democracy vote on a decision, the decision is necessarily a "winner." Jim > suggests that in socialist democratic decision-making "an effort would be > made to measure the true costs and benefits," but he provides no reason why > an individual voter in a socialist democractic decision-making process would > be better equipped or motivated to "measure the true costs and benefits" or > to vote in the manner consistent with the true costs and benefits as opposed > to the individual's personal interest. >
Louis had it right: we can argue endlessly about whether a capitalist of socialist economy will allocate resources "more optimally". But that's entirely beside the point. I am perfectly willing to give up "optimality" in exchange for having a more sane and equitable world. -raghu. -- Today is National Existential Ennui Awareness Day. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
