|
|
|
|
|
|
by inglor_cz
1637 days ago
|
|
|
"efficiently" This is the weasel word. In war, especially a war of national survival, one can argue that winning the war is the important cause and all others are of secondary importance. So you can actually use the word "efficient" about distribution of goods without first discussing the ends of said distribution. The main end is simply to win, or at least not to lose catastrophically. In peacetime, there isn't a single primary objective, but a multitude of smaller, competing ones. Once you start speaking of "efficient distribution of goods", you imply existence of a ladder of importance on which these objectives are sorted. An example: is it more efficient if Peter and Paul have one car each or if Peter has two cars and Paul has none? Well, it depends what they do with them, no? What if Paul is legally blind and cannot drive? (But radicals might still argue that Peter having two cars is a big no-no because it increases inequality.) |
|
|