From: Alejandro Agafonow (alejandro_agafonow@yahoo.es)
Date: Thu Jun 05 2008 - 18:37:11 EDT
You are right Jerry, I used Communism this time just to differentiate my position from your position.
In a country like Venezuela and I would dare to say that in any Latin American country and even USA, homosexuals would be overvoted to deny them freedom and recognition rights concerning the exorcise of a free sexuality. This is an example of the abuses that masses can commit without a proper rule of law.
And yes, I think that minorities have to have “freedom of consumption choices”, but out of a lot of consumptions that would threaten justice as fairness in an overlapping consensus. For example, we all agree that these minorities should have forbidden consuming sex with children. Whales could enter this kind of consumptions.
Nevertheless, if they want to buy a rare fruit only produced in Madagascar, why should we forbid this consumption? However, as Henry D. Dickinson stated, consumers have to be responsible for their venality and if we start the production of a good that in short time will be unsold because consumers changed their minds, we have to charge them with an “uncertainty surcharge”. They have to be responsible for their preferences but we should not forbid in advance certain rare or marginal consumptions.
Kind regards,
A. Agafonow
----- Mensaje original ----
De: GERALD LEVY <gerald_a_levy@msn.com>
Para: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
Enviado: jueves, 5 de junio, 2008 15:45:19
Asunto: RE: [OPE] II-Socialist Cybernetics in Allende’s Chile.
> Communism also requires a “rule of law”, not just the rule of aggregate people through vote.
Hi Alejandro A:
For there to be "rule of law" there has to be a state,
which is presumed not to exist under communism.
As for a "transitional" economy or "socialism", minorities
should have rights, but *what are they*? Life? Yes. Liberty?
One would hope so, but the meaning of this term in different
social systems is different. But, I presume you to mean
that minorities should have *freedom of consumption choices*.
Is that correct? If so, I have great reservations about granting
minorities such "freedoms". For instance, let's suppose that
the majority insists that all whaling be halted but a minority
insists on its 'right' to whale freely and consume whale meat.
Would you say, then, that the minority should have the right to
spend their money buying and consuming whale meat if they so wish?
In solidarity, Jerry
______________________________________________
Enviado desde Correo Yahoo! La bandeja de entrada más inteligente.
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 30 2008 - 00:00:16 EDT