On 2/17/06, Michael Nuwer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Autoplectic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Non-omniscience and an inability to experience 'the' > > future are > > irreducible features of human existence; they are > > not simply > > historical-sociological curiosities. > > I didn't mean to imply otherwise. > > > > Socialism > > cannot bring > > omniscience it can only change the individual and > > institutional > > contours of the relations of/between the > > known/unknown dynamic as they > > exist under capitalism. > > This is what I'm interested in; an analysis of those > contours under capitalism and how they may differ > under socialism.
--------------------------------- The Journals "Ethics" and "Philosophy and Public Affairs" had quite a bit of commentary on John Roemer's later works, "Theories of Distributive Justice" and Equality of Opportunity" on just what sort of obligations public officials would have in their attempts to create and maintain policies that neutralized the unintended consequences of the distribution of luck and risks beyond any individuals control in a society committed to egalitarianism [which for the purposes of discussion was a place holder for some sort of socialism]. The informational burdens were considered to be enormous and to create uncertainties of their own. There's also the book "Equality, Responsibility and the Law" by Arthur Ripstein that spends a lot of time looking at risk and liability and the mitigation of uncertainty. Some of his text works with a neglected law review article from the 1970's on the issue of "risk under socialism". Ian
