>I see no reason on a philosophical or psychological level to buy this
>argument. Isn't it more likely that those who fail to promote the general
>welfare do so not out of any mistaken illusions (though they're certainly
>common enough) about what composes the greatest good but rather because
>they're pursuing their own self-interests or the interests of some sect to
>which they belong? Lacking any evidence to the contrary, I think it's
>reasonable to assume that unintended consequences balance out over the long
>run.
Ah, but the set of unintended consequences (UC) is only a subset of the set of evil outcomes (EO) - leaving room in EO for the set intended consequences (many Nazis believed the extermination of the Jews was a Good Thing on behalf of the rest of us, whether we knew it or not - same with lotsa neoliberal-globaloney-privateering economists with respect to their cleansed nirvana - mebbe Beria, too, dunno - but you know what I mean)
Cheers, Rob.