Jim Elwell wrote:
...
Marcus, I hardly expected to change your mind with this. I have
read some of Smith's writing (see
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/facultybios/smith.html
for a complete bibliography), and clearly he speaks to my beliefs,
so I'm much more receptive to his message.
** No problem, Jim. I certainly understand where you were coming from, and I think
you also did with your statement below concerning what I meant. So, it's safe to say
we do understand each other and even agree on the second line below.
I knew that you, of course, would be fairly resistive to it. That's ok.
People make their decisions largely based on their current world
views, and those world views change very slowly, if at all. Perhaps
if you read some of Smith's work, your world view will change a bit
due to it. And perhaps not.
** Now, concerning your observation below:
The in the article, Smith said:
'Whether we're talking about politics or economics, or even
social interaction,' says Smith, 'the best systems maximize
the freedom of the individual, subject to the constraint of
others in the system.'
Marcus says:
'BTW, I'm not even agreeing with the title of this topic!...
'Validates free-market metrication'??? I don't think so...'
If the BEST system for an ECONOMIC interaction is one which
MAXIMIZES INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, then clearly the BEST system
for metrication is the free market.
** There is a VERY IMPORTANT point-of-order I need to bring to the discussion which
justifies my opposition to YOUR conclusion.
I'm not actually opposing Dr. Smith's statement you highlighted as much as your
*jumping* to the meaning that you attached to it or concluded from it!
Please let me explain. I consider myself as an expert on a management tool known as
optimization. 'Maximizing' something falls under this category of management science
tool, therefore, I can argue on this from a scientific point-of-view.
Maximization processes must take into account ALL peripheral constraints and
parameters pertinent to the problem. And this may NOT *necessarily* mean that 'free
markets' are THE answer even!!! One can argue that a *combination* of some
state-controled constraints with 'free market' forces could be THE combination that
would ultimately '*maximize* individual freedom(s)' indeed!
For example (I'll be exaggerating a little just to drive a point home, ok?), if
societies did NOT have legislation to control killing there would be unprecedented
chaos and harm to societies' well being (i.e. maximization of societies' "objective
function" would be seriously jeopardized). Hence, it follows that laws curbing such
actions would be appropriate and in order. Something similar could apply to economic
activities and trading.
You can disagree with Smith's statement, but I believe my claim
directly follows it.
** Not necessarily, please see my attempt at explaining why above.
Or are you claiming that metrication is not an economic endeavor?
** No, of course I'm not. But 'maximization of individual freedom(s)' may entail
compromises that warrant restricting somewhat *complete* freedom as preached by
"orthodox" free market forces.
As a... "demonstration" of that I'd like to cite a religious concept here that the
Kingdom of God will only bring TRUE prosperity and TRUE freedom for peoples *IF*
societies follow *GOD's RULES*, i.e. *no more sin in the world*!!!... :-)
Regards to you, too, my dear friend.
Marcu
____________________________________________________________
Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus!
Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
