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?