Message from discussion Smith v Cantillon (long) was Re: To David Friedman: Antitrust

From: Jim Klein  <rum...@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Smith v Cantillon (long) was Re: To David Friedman: Antitrust
Date: 1998/05/09
Message-ID: <6j20nb$6ar@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 351745729
Approved: tskir...@uiuc.edu
References: <199805070727.AAA26766@cybere.creative.net> <DDFr-0805982007410001@ddfr.vip.best.com>
X-Date: 9 May 1998 16:36:59 GMT
X-Email-Submissions-To: tskirvin+hpom...@math.uiuc.edu
X-Path: news
X-Submissions-To: tskirvin+...@math.uiuc.edu
X-Organization: Netcom
Originator: tskir...@alpha.math.uiuc.edu
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: det-mi17-02.ix.netcom.com
Organization: Auto-Moderation Bot, v0.99a
X-Netcom-Date: Sat May 09  9:36:59 AM PDT 1998
X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP humanities.philosophy.objectivism iQCVAwUBNVSGOItwLG25AQfZAQEoRQP/YpUIS+ba6jytWLJxcmyRUfqX/jeuRDEo K/OpqxzJ59GdrWNSJuXF5tRRtHbWRJNaWWkz+Sr8/VRpunfDCO4dKJkv3KZgsvyW Z7p3n5dDdWksRojv8AMhGkcQVKzXOr9//kjNBpB+qze3lY51eDwIrkwxlA6GXlUq jQ4prX/weGo= =TE/X
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism


In <DDFr-0805982007410...@ddfr.vip.best.com> David Friedman
<D...@best.com> writes: 

>"If enough employment cannot be found to occupy the 25 persons in a
>hundred upon work useful and profitable to the state, I see no
>objection to encouraging employment which serves only for ornament or
>amusement"

Where'd you find this, over the doorway to the U.S. Congress?


>So when everything that can be done to serve the state is done,
>Cantillon thinks it harmless if any remaining labor goes to produce
>things that give people pleasure.

It's hard to tell absent context, but I think it may be worse.  Isn't
he saying that if "productive work" on behalf of the State can't be
found for those in its employ, then even "make-work" work is justified
in being supported by the State?

If not, then somebody should tell the U.S. Congress...because that's
obviously the interpretation they take!

PMFJI


jk