In a message dated 9/1/2000 9:30:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
alexboko@umich.edu writes:
> In other words, I'm trying to address this at the level of 'How best to
> divide up finite resource XXX between agents A, B, and C under
> conditions YYY?' rather than 'Should ruthless sleazy factory owners be
> allowed to steal food from the mouths of unemployed single mothers with
> AIDS?'.
>
Quite literally, that's the biggest problem.
Is it really appropriate to eliminate the humanitarian factors and emotions,
when the decisions cleary impact humanity? Implied also are outcomes that
rely exclusively on the "sleazy" businesses AND (quite possible just as
sleazy) constiuency's moral sense of right and wrong? ..that people will do
the right thing. Will they?
What we have here is armchair philosophy. No one really knows if it will work
out, they *believe" it will, based on theory.
'Free market think' would benefit from doing a lot of research by
interviewing and census taking. And then by doing what educators, boards,
foundations and non-profits are required to do: EVALUATE impact. At this
point, making statements "en largesse" about how neat this sounds is blowing
hot air up people's skirts.
Not only do people not trust it's effectiveness, when they question it, they
get more theory, not experienced information.
Suggestion
If you really believe it profitable: pledge a sum of money - or get a pledge
from some rich business exec to open up a think tank. Set up a free market
micro system, observe it in practice for a set time - but do actual field
research, interview people, keep financial records, record repercussion,
collect testemonials, re-test for impact before and after -- and publish the
results.
N
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:36:54 MDT