Smith v Cantillon (long) was Re: To David Friedman: Antitrust - humanities.philosophy.objectivism

Message from discussion Smith v Cantillon (long) was Re: To David Friedman: Antitrust
From: David Friedman <D...@best.com>
Subject: Re: Smith v Cantillon (long) was Re: To David Friedman: Antitrust
Date: 1998/05/10
Message-ID: <DDFr-0905981940570001@ddfr.vip.best.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 351857666
Approved: tskir...@uiuc.edu
References: <199805070727.AAA26766@cybere.creative.net> <DDFr-0805982007410001@ddfr.vip.best.com> <6j20nb$6ar@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>
X-Date: Sat, 09 May 1998 19:40:57 -0700
X-Email-Submissions-To: tskirvin+hpom...@math.uiuc.edu
X-Path: DDFr
X-Submissions-To: tskirvin+...@math.uiuc.edu
X-Organization: Santa Clara University
Originator: tskir...@alpha.math.uiuc.edu
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: ddfr.vip.best.com
X-Trace: 894767613 14740 (none) 206.86.0.12
Organization: Auto-Moderation Bot, v0.99a
X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP humanities.philosophy.objectivism iQCVAwUBNVUSFYtwLG25AQfZAQEHcgQAuaJ9pzEsMiBfxKBa7I2GNXXf7ezmnTTb l+7EA5Lq58IbOTM4G0fluOH+UuIoIu7M0/nrBBuUX+J8HJmUjthEYeur8v85NLN2 YV+hwbiMDip8Gceg7qecKkpxVxTqM/nx2ejDp9IE9ySmwYiIRUr+hdFPgyVPN+az Ipei6OxyLiQ= =jmYB
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism


In article <6j20nb$...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>, Jim Klein 
<rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>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?

I don't think so. If you want to look at the context, just do a search for
Cantillon; I downloaded the essai but don't remember the URL.

I think the implication of "encouraging" is not "paying for" but "in
figuring out the right government policy, counting as on the whole a
mildly good thing."
-- 
David Friedman
D...@Best.com
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
"No man is secure in his life, liberty or property 
while the legislature is in session"