: Clever spin on that Gee but if you where to take the individualist stance, which is essentially anti-social/sharing/inter-related, why would you be writting a book?because individualism isnt anti-social, its co operative with an emphasis of free asociation.
: Besides look at the huge centralisation involved in the Privately owned Command Economy run by Gates and Murdoch etc. does it cause it to be disatisfying or collapse?
It can do, hence some radical shake ups in some large organisations, and the tendency to devolve ever more decisions into sub areas of the business. Good point - support the argument against central planning.
: : Wouldnt it skew science into being *wrong* aswell? when the scientists proposed test, worked out by the scientists because she knows what she is doing, is altered by the votes of all these external people?
: I dont know about this.
Well - Think of a personal example - would you rather your doctors make all the decisions about your medical treatment by themselves or do you think the local townsfolk should have their say too when it comes to dosages and surgery? I think you get the point of the above.
: But Gee the private sector isnt inherently democratic, if I go to the super store and they dont have what I want and I go around them all and they dont have what I want they dont have to supply it, on the scale of cost benefit the needs or whims of me dont count at all. The centralisation etc. you talk about is endemic in the market, corporates or large companies are like miniature states governed by dictators who may or may not be despotic to consumers or workers as the mood takes them.
Intriguingly many companies look to market toward ever smaller niche markets - its moving away from 'any color as long as its black' production, has been for a long time. youre right that sometimes theyre just not making what you want - then you have the option of a hard struggle with potentially massive rewards (not just money) as a creator yourself.
: I still dont see how this bolsters your argument, the proclaimation of the need of independence in decision making and resource allocation etc. is as indictive of capitalism as state socialism.
Given the above - is it not a damnation of any social setting then?
: I think NJ considers the content of the argument as wrong not just it's empirical legitimicy.
So what if the research was objectively correct?
