Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site acf4.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!acf4!mms1646
From: mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: What is "capitalism"? (Explorations of "self-interest")
Message-ID: <2380044@acf4.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Jun-85 21:23:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: acf4.2380044
Posted: Mon Jun 24 21:23:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Jun-85 01:39:13 EDT
References: <298@spar.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 29

>/* flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) /  7:58 pm  Jun 21, 1985 */

>I thought you were talking about self-interest generally, including
>"technical" questions (just what do you mean by "technical", anyway?).

By "technical" I mean issues of technique, i.e., means, as opposed to ends.

>That would seem to me to be the more important issue, especially if,
>e.g., whether one should wear a seat belt is a "technical" issue.

I don't see why this is the more important issue.  One should not
consider ends until one has decided at least on the rudiments of ends.

As for the seat-belt issue, this seems to include both technical and "goal"
considerations.

>(And you apparently admit that on "technical" issues it might be wise to
>let others have a say in your decision.)

Of course.  It would be the height of folly to believe otherwise.

>By the way, I think it's an oversimplification to speak of "fundamental
>goals in life"; I think a rational person decides on goals piecemeal,
>learning by experience all the while.

I don't see any conflict between the concept of "fundamental goals"
and dynamicism of these goals.

							Mike Sykora