humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Mar 2, 8:50 pm, David Schwartz wrote:
> On Mar 2, 5:41 pm, Mark Sieving wrote:
>
> > Bears aren't the ones adding CO2 to the atmosphere: humans are.  By
> > your reasoning, there's nothing wrong with a human eating a child, if
> > he doesn't think about it.
>
> Obviously the analogy doesn't apply that way.

It was your analogy. If it doesn't apply to the topic at hand, why
did you bring it up?

> > The general idea of free markets, going back at least to Adam Smith,
> > is that individuals acting in their own interest will generally
> > produce the optimal result overall.  But "acting in their own
> > interest" does not mean acting mindlessly.
>
> It is in comparison to central planning. The advocates of central
> planning will defend their view by arguing that humans who are
> centrally organized will obviously do better than humans who act
> mindlessly and, if they work in concert, it is only be accident.
>
> Obviously, my point is that it's not "blundering about without
> thinking". It's blundering about without central planning.

But that wasn't what you said. What you said what that it's wrong to
make major changes with intent, but it's OK to make major changes as
an unintended side effect. There was nothing about central planning.