- 19 Aug 2011 15:57
#13782928
On one hand this may be a theory I am unfamiliar with, in which case I put my hands up. Perhaps there is a book or article on this subject you may point me towards.
On the other hand it may just be the case that you are assuming that there is a reason why cause A may somehow be preferable to cause B. In this case, I ask, at what point does A have a 'logical priority' over B?
As I said, investing in cause A leads, by the velocity of monetary systems, to investment in cause B. Thus if there are certain causes that are more rational there is no reason why they will be given less priority in a market society. There is a market for everything that people can buy, from doughnuts and cosmetics to space exploration and cancer research. The main function for the State here lies in demand management otherwise there is no reason not to pay people for simply digging holes.
It's not disturbing it's just a pretty good indicator that you don't understand logical priorities, or at least care for them.
On one hand this may be a theory I am unfamiliar with, in which case I put my hands up. Perhaps there is a book or article on this subject you may point me towards.
On the other hand it may just be the case that you are assuming that there is a reason why cause A may somehow be preferable to cause B. In this case, I ask, at what point does A have a 'logical priority' over B?
I'm not saying I don't want fuckable old-ladies, it's just we have a few things to do first. I want both, and that's why capitalists suck.
As I said, investing in cause A leads, by the velocity of monetary systems, to investment in cause B. Thus if there are certain causes that are more rational there is no reason why they will be given less priority in a market society. There is a market for everything that people can buy, from doughnuts and cosmetics to space exploration and cancer research. The main function for the State here lies in demand management otherwise there is no reason not to pay people for simply digging holes.