On Sun, 8 Aug 1999, Milutin wrote:

> >> The average income is now 10.2 dollars(it improved!) but the condition of
> them, as a group, is worst.
> >Care to explain further??
>
> One person is better off while 9 others are worse off.
>

1) Does this assume that they people gain no value in the things that they
   acquire.

2) It also assumes that the goods and/or services purchased by the nine
   (9) individuals  will not lead to future income.

3) It assumes that the one person is an island and does not need to
   trade/exchange items/goods/services of value for money.

In short, the example that you have created does take into consideration
the "theory of movement," "barriers," and "value exchange."

> >If the nation-state is able to provide services through the taxation of the
> population, then the entire group is better off, providing the services are
> in fact provided. Your economic argument is not sound.
>
> my simple argument is one for a nation-state.  Also, it isn't a FACT that
> services will be provided(my country, UN says is "the best country to live
> in", ain't close to my ideal). Helping the less fortunate seems like a
> radical principle, but is a humane and moral one.

There is much complicated confusion in the above statement.  Best in the
sense of what?  --Consumption?  That is being able to consume more?

Best in the sense there is not domination?

Best in the sense there are no barriers?


                [       [       TEXT CUT        ]       ]

F. Leon