On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 7:10 PM, David B. Shemano <[email protected]> wrote: > I understand that, but you are assuming the end and not explaining how you > get there. You and Louis emphasize that you will give up optimality of > resource allocation in exchange for a "sane and equitable world" or "peace, > clean air and water, and social and economic equality," but you fail to > explain what institutional arrangements will ensure the specific results that > you desire. Jim Devine places his trust in democratic decision-making, but > simply assumes that such a process will result in the ends you want. I see > no inherent connection -- either in agreeent on ends or knowledge of how to > achieve the ends even if there was agreement. >
I don't speak for Louis, but I personally am not really sure what institutional arrangements it would take. I just know what does *not* work: unfettered free markets. I think, it is unfair to ask for a simple all-encompassing prescription like "central planning". For what it is worth, I even grant that markets, private-property, competition etc have a useful role to play, it is just a much, much smaller role than what we have today. And I certainly wouldn't grant "free markets" the exalted ideological status it enjoys today. The best I can give you is that I firmly believe there is no role for for-profit players in certain essential sectors like food, medicine, law enforcement and education, and for all its sub-optimalities, I'd much rather trust the public sector with these functions. Non-essential sectors, there may be room for compromises. -raghu. -- "Really ?? What a coincidence, I'm shallow too!!" _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
