On Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 15:35:32 (-0400) Julio Huato writes: >Bill Lear wrote: > >> I didn't say you were defending Nazis. > >Not directly. It was a rhetorical question implying that my argument >amounted to a defense of the Nazis: > >> So, we should cheer on the Nazis as >> they exterminate and rampage? > >It's a low blow.
No, it's a legitimate question that makes you uncomfortable. Big difference. See more below before you start bellowing again. >> You said that a society that >> lost out to one that is more brutal >> and aggressive is less "efficient" >> (your word, not mine). I think that >> kind of thinking is shallow. > >You're entitled to your opinion. In my own opinion though, if >efficiency is to mean what economists say it means (ultimately, the >optimal use of human life), then a society that cannot defend itself >is (say, on average, to allow for the role of chance) less efficient >than one that can respond and even prevail. Hmm, so a rapist is more efficient than his victim? >There's absolutely no implication that more virulent or aggressive >types of society are superior in some general *moral* sense. That's >you attributing something to my argument that is not there. > >You think that the word confers on the more efficient society (the >society more capable of developing the productive force of labor) some >sort of moral badge. It doesn't. Well, I think it does, and I think it's highly misleading to make the mistake of most neoclassical economists and to ignore the obvious externalities. What were the costs of the lives and liberties of those trampled by the Nazis, or the U.S., if references to the uber bad guys makes you uncomfortable? What is the cost to the rape victim? Wouldn't including these monumental costs make it immediately obvious that those raping and pillaging are extraordinarily inefficient? Bill
