Leaderboard

Okay, so using the word desert can include disinterestedness, where a deontological rule says a person deserves something without regard to their interests. Or it could mean something more consequentialist, where you just try to figure out how things need to end up. We need the work of the word "interest" because we want to keep in mind the agent acting, trying to work for goals and objectives, and some consideration of the nature of the agent acting. So instead of taking only what people deserve, we are also keeping in mind the whole point of needing to deserve anything anyway. You're right to think that things get complicated here, because we are trying to distinguish what is actually in your interest, versus simply having goals. The principle of 2 definitions is the best thing I have here to say, which DW mentioned in the previous post. This doesn't make sense, because irrational people are just as free to sell and exchange anything and everything they want. For that reason alone, there can be many things in the free market where the result is not fair. So I have no idea where you get the idea that free markets are markets where everyone is rational. Yeah, a free market of rational individuals would produce fair results, but free markets also include individuals being irrational on occasion, or all the time. You can say that free markets have the best allocation of resources, and the only markets where individuals can truly have no conflicts of interest, but it doesn't follow that the allocation of resources is always fair in the free market, or that conflicts of interest will never occur in the free market. Basically I'm saying that if at least one person is acting irrationally, there will be a conflict of interest.

You keep giving different versions of the same scenario. I keep asking each time why you think it is a conflict of interest, or phrased differently, which interests conflict. At this point it's clear that you just aren't reading, or you don't understand what you're reading despite clarifications and explanations. No, I don't mean agreeing, I mean even understanding what Rand said so that you actually know what you're disagreeing with.