From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lcrocker@calweb.com)
Date: Wed Jan 29 1997 - 22:09:35 MST
> > Please explain what you mean here, because my mind has no referent
> > for the word "economics" that comes anywhere close to the attributes
> > you assign to it here.
>
> Avarice > self-interest > Economics
I ask for a definition, and you just name three things that have
nothing to do with each other? Is your mind so full of floating
abstractions and propaganda that you can't define terms clearly?
"Avarice" is clearly a superset of self-interest: it implies naive
short-term value of self at the expense of others. It is irrational
because it comes at the long-term expense of oneself as well. An
avaricious predator can only exploit others, while a rationally
self-interested actor can benefit from mutual cooperation with others.
"Self-interest" is simple enough, though you seem to attach some
negative connotation to it. How can value life if you do not value
your own?
"Economics" I have already defined for you, since you seem unclear
on the concept. What was it about my definition you didn't like?
Do you deny that need and scarcity exist? Do you deny that those
facts imply the principles that follow from them? Do you disagree
that studying those principles is rational?
The remainder of your message seems to attack capitalism, because
you seem to equate it with avarice (and conformity, wherever that
one sneaked in). I suggest that you clarify your usage of terms
in your own mind, and you might find your arguments more compelling.
As they are, they seems as meaningless and disconnected as a Ross
Perot advertisement.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:06 MST