<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Well we seem to agree more than we disagree. If find you remark about Posner
<DIV></DIV>>remarkable though.
<DIV></DIV>>Someone who does not see the relevance of millions of unnecessary deaths and >vast misery as counting against an unrestrained free market surely is extremely odd.
<P>That Dick Posner is.</P>
<P>>How could he not get the point? </P>
<P>I think he'd say the alternatives are even worse.</P>
<P>Does he really hold that >unnecessary deaths and vast misery are not bad consquences! And if he didnt >see these as evils why would he not concede the point that the system does >have these results? Why would it matter to him that these results were not >produced unless he somehow thought they were bad? > </P>
<P>He's not insane, so he'd agree that these were bad things. He doesn't think they are instrinsic to the system, but to the extent that they are, he thinks that it's either the irresponsibility of the victims or their bad luck. And he thinks we can't do better.</P>
<P>--jks</P>
<DIV></DIV>>Cheers, Ken Hanly
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>----- Original Message ----- > But it's not possible to test philosophical
<DIV></DIV>>propositions in such a
<DIV></DIV>> > conclusive way. It's not even obviosuly easy to test first order moral
<DIV></DIV>> > judgments this way. If you pointed out to Judge Posner that an
<DIV></DIV>>unrestrained
<DIV></DIV>> > free market would lead to millions of unnecessary deaths and vast misery,
<DIV></DIV>> > he'd say, "Assuming you are right, which I don't concede, your point is?"
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > >>
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > _________________________________________________________________
<DIV></DIV>> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <a href='http://go.msn.com/bql/hmtag_itl_EN.asp'>http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></html>