tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4073216153962700110.post4035383651821015691..comments2023-07-15T04:51:17.650-04:00Comments on Smiling Dave's Blog of Psychology, Economics, and Gentle Sarcasm.: More on Caplan and Welfare EconomicsSmiling Davehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12898802942529057872noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4073216153962700110.post-25925463097621034372012-08-05T13:38:38.263-04:002012-08-05T13:38:38.263-04:00Glad to see we all agree. Ty for that quote.Glad to see we all agree. Ty for that quote.Smiling Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12898802942529057872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4073216153962700110.post-85025692847049112612012-08-04T18:07:27.221-04:002012-08-04T18:07:27.221-04:00Again, I point to the comment I made on the previo...Again, I point to the comment I made on the previous one. "Social utility" is bunk - and Rothbard made it quite clear why.<br /><br />In fact, he even argued thus:<br /><br />"In the first place, there might well be one or more people in existence who dislike and envy A or B, and who therefore experience pain and psychic loss because the object of their envy has now improved his lot. We cannot therefore conclude from the mere fact of an exchange that "everyone" is better off, and we can therefore not simply leap to the valuational idea of social utility."<br /><br />In other words, it is quite obvious that Rothbard recognizes that an unknown level of envy can exist, even if it cannot be demonstrated as such, and USES IT TO ARGUE AGAINST the social utility doctrine Caplan holds to.Matt Tanoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02947545760259213385noreply@blogger.com