...however, it does pop up in my Google Reader, and part of me feels that I should at least say how utterly pointless and stupid I find it - although I'm sure plenty do anyhow.
But here we go; for a change, Don Boudreaux writes a "letter" to someone; this time it's someone who happens to have crossed his path on one of his hobby horses - people who (how dare they?!) suggest that after a natural disaster, once things are rebuilt they might just be better than what came before.
It's not rocket science really, is it?
But no, Boudreaux has to take this innocent, encouraging statement to its most absurd length, suggesting we should all go out and destroy things. I just don't quite understand what he thinks he is contributing to anyone by such statements. Nobody is suggesting that, and nor is it helpful to point out that an absurd extension of the logic may just take you there.
In general arguments, we make conditioning statements. Conditional on there being a destructive force on the way called a hurricane, we try to make the best of the situation. We might, shock horror, make the suggestion that when rebuilt, the new capital stock could, due to progress, be a little better than what was destroyed. Why then do we need the kinds of contributions Boudreaux offers us in his latest letter? Other than pointing out an extreme we would never reach (because, duh, we're not stupid), I don't see much. And given that extreme would never be arrived at, I thus don't see the point. But maybe someone can help me out here?
No comments:
Post a Comment