Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Re: Logic, fact, preference [Part 1] Message-ID: <28200255@inmet.UUCP> Date: Sat, 2-Nov-85 04:58:00 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.28200255 Posted: Sat Nov 2 04:58:00 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Nov-85 20:10:11 EST References: <306@umich.UUCP> Lines: 32 Nf-ID: #R:umich:-30600:inmet:28200255:000:1385 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Nov 2 04:58:00 1985 >/* Written 12:09 am Oct 31, 1985 by baba@spar in inmet:net.politics.t */ >>>If you are in a free-rider situation with other individuals to whom >>>the discomfort of coercion is less significant than the benefits >>>accrued, a failure to coerce the lot of you is an injustice to those >>>others in exactly the same way as coercion is an injustice to you. >>>Is there a solution to this dilemma, or is libertarianism a system >>>that can only be practiced in a closed religious community? [Baba] >> >> There's a rough problem here. How to weigh my dislike of being >> coerced against other peoples dislike of losing a public good? >> [Nat Howard] > >The other people in the above scenario are not losing a "public >good", but a personal material benefit. Your railings against >Stalinism are, I suppose, commendable, but they hardly answer >the question. > > Baba >/* End of text from inmet:net.politics.t */ > Odd. In the article Baba seems to be replying to, I didn't mention the word "Stalin". I was referring to the lower personal material benefits that obtain in a SOCIALIST system. As I see it, the other people in the above scenario are losing BOTH a public good (the public good will be undersupplied because of a free-rider situation) and the personal material benefits that would result from the correct supply of public goods. Am I missing something, here?