Every last living human can (and does) imagine many ways in which reality is somewhat unsatisfactory and, many times, may see one or more ways to render a reality more in line with one’s preferences. That’s the boiled-down essence of the process of human life: an endless succession of choices and actions aimed always at substituting a more desirable state of affairs for a lesser.

If the individuals of whom we speak are free to try to attain such better state of affairs, they learn (some more quickly than others) they must participate in a giant cooperative project aimed at providing the continuous maximum satisfaction of all, in which each individual’s own satisfaction is conditioned upon the degree to which his own contribution to the effort is valued by his fellows.

We call this cooperative effort “competition”; the activity takes place in the “market.” The effect of the activity, both in intention and actuality, is efficiency: the use of the least amount of both resources and effort possible without the employment of coercive violence.

There have always been two avenues obvious to people seeking to better their conditions: the way of people free to compete on the market to attain the best satisfaction possible of their own wants by providing their own best efforts toward the satisfaction of the wants of others and, on the other hand, the system of coercive control by some of the satisfaction for which those others are permitted to strive.

Ms. Hill is simply one of those (who, in sum, still constitute majorities in almost all places in the world) who believes that more satisfaction–true happiness–requires that coercive violence be exercised against those peacefully engeaged in trying to maximize their neighbors’ satisfaction (and, thus, their own).

Ms. Hill is not dangerous–but her views and their propagation are, as they are the views which, in achieving and maintaining political power, empower the very coercive control which, when weak, merely deprive many of a better and fuller material life but (as Economic theory has developed), when grown stronger, lead to one or more of several forms of destruction.

The arguments, weapons, and tactics of the (whether frank or unwitting) collectivists are many and varied. Against them, all we may deploy is truth.

Choice is “waste”; freedom is “waste”.

Duh.

Presumably her criticism should be conditional on some awareness of these market conditions, though I suspect it’s not, and she really *doesn’t* know what she’s on about.

If you could effect one major policy change in the governing of your country, what would it be? > Abolish private education so that the most motivated and powerful parents and the brightest children and the best teachers would be forced to enter the comprehensive system and improve it out of all recognition. And I speak as one who was privately educated and sent her daughters to private schools. But I would not have done if the local state system had been as good as the private sector in which they were so well educated.

Such a sad tale isn’t it! FFS.

Alas that was before the old comments system went for a Burton as James Hamilton made some good ones about having to read her stuff at school: reluctantly.

She obviously doesn’t view that as a waste of the worlds resources….

It seems fairly obvious to me that she is talking about the culture of instant obsolescence – eg the way that certain people feel impelled to be up-to-the-mark and buy e very new replica Man U football shirt that comes out or very new computer game. However, rather than deriding her for writing books and a very long-running West end play rather than being content with being nerds like you, perhaps you should educate her in the strange knock-on effects that this culture of instant gratification has on the developing world. Yes, it does seem wasteful to buy a new replica football shirt every 3 weeks ot to have to package identical toothpaste in thousands of different ways – but I imagine it makes a hell of lot of difference to the f0lks who have to make them.

But presumably she wouldn’t argue that we don’t need all those authors publishing all those books, and that these should be cut to save resources?

I rather think there will be more people who’ve heard of and read Susan Hill than you, Mr Worstall.

And, of course, the fluctuating value of all the things on which much of the difference is spent.

Best regards