From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Date: Mon Apr 29 2002 - 11:40:05 MDT
> (Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>):
>
> So, you think trade is the ultimate and only good way for
> sentient beings to relate while being driven by rational
> selfishness?
Clearly, yes. There are only three options: altruism, in which
only the benefit to the recipient of the action is taken into
account; force, in which only the will of the actor matters; and
trade, which is voluntary exchange to the mutual benefit of both.
> Do you also think that their understanding of what
> really is in their self-interest will never include some or
> perhaps all of which you now disparage as irrational because it
> is "altruism"? If so, what is the convincing rational argument
> that persuades you?
Quite a few rational actions /appear/ to be altruistic. For
example, I happen to be one of those die-hard libertarians who
nonetheless thinks that some forms of welfare are not necessarily
evil, because they may benefit the providers in the form of less
crime, stimulating risk and creativity, and other effects. I don't
like the really stupid forms, and I don't appreciate being taxed
for it, but if I were offered a free choice of private governments
to subscribe to I might very well choose one that offered such
services. Not because of some feeling of social obligation, but
because I rationally believe such a system might benefit me in the
long run.
I' don't know what specific things you think I "now disparage as
irrational". Perhaps if you offered examples, I could offer more
specific analysis.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:42 MST