>Why do you and other collectivists in one breath praise the value
>of others, and in the next breath claim that seeking your selfish
>interest would harm others? That's a plain contradiction. Other
>people are valuable to me; I cannot achieve my selfish goals without
>the cooperation and interaction of others. Why do you refuse to
>listen to your own words?
I wasn't praising the value of others, nor was i saying that seeking self
interest hurts others *by definition*, just that it can in some cases, as a
matter of fact, i agreed with everything you said on this, but it wasn't
very specific, as to where you saw contradictions to it in what i wrote...
>Not only /can/ "the good of the many" be ignored in a rational
>system, it /must/ be. It, like democracy, is a pretty idea that
>can only produce misery in the long run, by mechanisms well known
>and clearly evidenced over the ages. There are only two ways for
>all human interaction to take place: by unanimous consent, or by
>force. Any attempt to place value on "society" or "the many" or
>"the majority" or anything else but individual self-interest will
>inevitably require the use of force, and is doomed to failure.
here's where i disagree, and like to point out that you yourself said you
can't pursue your opwn self interest without others, so up to some point
the good of the many is inherent to the good of the individual (& vice
versa!!!). There are situations where the good of the many limits the good
of the individual, but i believe there are also situations where the
opposite CAN be the case. Why is striving for a system where both
situations are minimalized so bad ?
Oh and don't worry, Friedman and Hayek are next on my list of purchases,
but as i said before, reading them will probably only increase my postings
on the subject...
J. de Lyser
Brussels