Sorry about the delay but i don't usually have much time for posting so if my response isn't a one-liner, it takes too long for a net discussion.
On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Dan Fabulich wrote:
[lots left out]
> And now, to reuse an old post of mine:
> As a result of this decreased long term growth, the welfare of the poor
> might look something like this:
> Welfare is good for the poor in the short run, it is bad for everyone in
> the long run. Abandoning welfare is quite bad for the poor in the short
> run, but good for everyone in the long run.
So, assuming your analysis is correct, would it be better to wait for a while until that short run drop becomes non-critical (ie when the poor would be able to survive the drop)? would that short run be shorter than whatever time is left till MNT comes along? would that same analysis above hold after MNT? (BTW, this are all semirhetorical questions, i don't expect anyone to know how long till MNT or how short that short run is)
> >>2) Suppose Alice and Bob are in a two-person communist society. Let us
> >>also suppose that Bob is greedy. Bob notices that Alice is making various
> >>goods. Can Bob use all of the goods Alice is making? Or should his access
> >>to the goods be restricted in some way?
> The above question was pointed towards Mr. Dubrovsky, as well as anyone
> else who thinks communism works without property rights.
I don't really see much of a problem with the above, depending on the specifics of the word 'use' ('have access to', 'terminally consume'). I also don't see it as a realistic possibility for a society. A third point is in your question of restricting B's access, who is meant to be the restrictor?
<personal stance clarification>
BTW, i don't really think communism could work in big groups pre-MNT time, but then i don't think anything can really work very well pre-MNT time because there isn't enough spare wealth around to keep the bottom from falling into the necessity band where decisions are not made on rational calculations of market theory but on the fact that the human machine stops functioning if energy containing substances aren't pumped in on a regular basis. Also, i don't see (pre-MNT) Anarcho-capitalism as anything but utopic for reasons i don't have time to expand on right now but summarise to 'what's the difference between a PPA and a government other than PPAs magically behave in nicer ways?'
</personal stance clarification>
A small counter-example anyway:
Suppose A and B live in a two person free-market society. A owns the land and charges B everything that B might produce for the right to live on that land. Should the sacredness of A's right to control the land be respected in this case? What if A charges more than anything that B could possibly produce?