Quote:
Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.
Could you explain what you mean by the definition of utility being false?
|
You said: "Economics will tell you that each person acts in their own best interest to maximize utility, thus a person with any sense would quit working and remain on welfare."
This is a theoretical maxim that is almost always violated unless you use an exceptionally broad definition of "utility" . . . for example, credit card debt does not maximize the utility of a dollar, and may or may not maximize the marginal utility of the person's enjoyment (or "need it now" factor), so that's a clear violation of the maxim.
There are really dozens of examples that agree - the individual
should work to maximize individual utility, but that doesn't mean that they
do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.
What is either/or? I didnt mention either/or. The words arent even in there so im a little  by your question. |
You are saying that, instead of a low-yield effort to keep out drug users (note: you've not really backed up the fact that it's low-yield - we still have little evidence either way, although the popular assumption is that the number would be higher than the population at large but lower than some people expect), we should focus on efficiency.
I think it's perfectly acceptable to consider both, or consider the former a part of the later. They can occur together.
Threaded Mode
