From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Jun 06 2002 - 21:55:48 MDT
Lee Daniel Crocker writes
> > I'll avoid doing business with you, Mr. Crocker, if you believe that "an
> > excessive desire to acquire or possess, as wealth or power, beyond what one
> > needs or deserves" is a noble thing.
>
> I couldn't have said it better myself.
Why is it noble? Generally, do we not reserve the word "noble"
for people who make some visible sacrifice for the sake of
(usually) a platonic principle, or for the benefit of others?
> What's evil is trying to acquire things through violent or
> fraudulent means.
Just so.
> If one wants to acquire wealth and power by means of
> free exchange with other free individuals, the more
> the better--that's what makes the world a better
> place, and why we're all here.
I am afraid that here you have lost many of those who
Mike Lorrey calls the "anti-propertarians". I think
that it might help them see where we are going with
this to point out that wealth production by an individual
is usually proportional to the number and size of economic
exchanges he or she makes with others.
Thus if we want a maximally wealthy civilization, it
is *necessary* that those who engage in the greatest
number of free economic exchanges with others profit
mightily.
Rockefeller contributed more to the total wealth of
the world than anyone else I can think of, though he
happened to do it in some cases by utter ruthlessness
towards competitors past the point where many might
properly draw an ethical line. While I cannot praise
his methods or his ruthlessness, I must acknowledge
his contribution.
> "Need" and "deserve" are empty, meaningless concepts.
Only when attempting to prescribe social policy.
Lee Corbin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:38 MST