Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (21308)	7/17/2005 6:38:34 PM
From: exdaytrader76	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

The essence of just law is Mutual Coercion Mutually Agreed Upon It just goes in circles. No law will please everyone - then is it no longer mutual? And what is "just" anyway? It reminds me of those pro-lifers and their "values."

To: TigerPaw who wrote (21308)	7/17/2005 6:42:27 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Interesting. Malthusian population theory combined with public goods and externalities theory as justification for "relinquishing the freedom to breed." Problem is, Malthus failed to consider more than just technology of food production. He ignored the possibilities that men and women would find things to do with their time besides procreate, would actually prefer and find practical ways of having fewer children. In other words, he ignored human preferences and human ingenuity in meeting those preferences. His theory said, basically, that if the means of survival exceed mere subsistence levels, the population would always grow until subsistence levels are reached. A dismal outlook (not THE "dismal" one), and wrong. BTW, that writer also got Bentham wrong. "The greatest good for the greatest number" implies nothing about "maximizing population." It implies only a certain form of social welfare function for a given population. In any case, his notion that populations would grow out of control until the great commons that is Earth is stretched to its limits and can no longer support all of us is just wrong. Population growth, if you back out inward migration, is generally slower in the developed world and is actually negative in much of Europe, directly contradicting Malthusian theory that said relative plenty would lead to more births and greater population growth. Since this is the major premise of Hardin's argument for "relinquishing the freedom to breed", then his whole argument falls apart. PS: I know this isn't the point you were making in your post to exdaytrader. I'm just guessing that you felt the article's argument had some meritorious relevance to your abortion debate here. It's an interesting article, but like so many social/political/economic ideas of the 60s, it is deeply flawed.