Author: PubliusPublius Date: May 11, 2007 18:36
>> Econ hopes to define the constraints in terms of freedom. That is of
>> course circular, since we do not know what freedom in a social setting
>> is until we know what the constraints are. The constraints must be
>> defined in terms of something else, such as harm, as you've said.
>
> The arguement will not be circular, since harm comes from the concept
> of absolute freedom. Any interference with absolute freedom is harm.
That won't work, Econ. If every interference with absolute freedom is a
"harm," then every society is one in which everyone constantly harms everyone
else. If I interfere with your attempt to rape or kill me, or to prevent you
from taking the apple I have just picked, then I have harmed you. If I am
sleeping in a cave you desire to sleep in, and don't vacate at your command,
I have harmed you. If I pick an apple you planned to pick tomorrow, then I've
harmed you. Per Roy, even if I pick an apple you had no plans to pick, but
might have liked to pick had you seen it, then I've harmed you.
| 
