On 2/16/06, Sandwichman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In correspondence with a right-wing libertarian, he mentioned that he would > defend 'til the cows come home the proposition that "human wants and desires > are unlimited." > > I corrected him, pointing out that wants and desires could only be > unlimited _in principle_. To assert that they are actually unlimited ignores > the basic condition that each desire must have a duration. > > But it got me to thinking that I usually hear that trite piece of economic > wisdom in pretty much the vulgar form my interlocuter presented it. > > So my question is: do economic textbooks usually/always/seldom make the in > principle distinction? Is there a "canonical" statement of this proposition? > > The Sandwichman
-------------------------------- Not necessarily a response to the actual question but..... In principle arguments are, in principle, suspect regarding the actual, emprirical behavior of human beings. We have no idea of what a positive definition/demonstration of unlimited wants means or signifies any more than we a have a definition/demonstration of the actual infinite.
