nai's rhetoric

negative?
the ability to voice discontent is negative? only if you were to look at the overall efficiency of the system but surely more negative is to be unhappy and be unallowed to say beep.
 

perhaps you have misunderstood me. a negative externality occurs when the by-product is viewed as having a social cost. in my example: the social cost of going on strike to exercise their freedom of speech results in negative externalities such as delays in getting the tube, lag times in setting exam papers resulting in final year students not being able to graduate and so forth. the ability to voice discontent is not negative but the by products of doing so.
thus the crux of the question really is if the right of freedom of speech outweighs the negative externalities that it creates. a good comparison would be i suppose between singapore and london where social democracy exists but on different levels ya?
 

yay finally got other viewers :):)
please do leave your name and blog addy as well ya? we are all nice friendly people here.
 

yes, indeed, the question was about freedom of speech vs. the costs of temporary delays. i guess i am still one-sided about this one. or rather, i believe that if freedom of speech has been given to humans as a matter of fact, then it is incredulous to take it away later. true democrats could never accept to think their opinions disallowed. on the other hand, if you never really had it to begin with, you can probably justify its lack by seeing efficiency as a positive effect. afterall singapore is envied by many in terms of it wealth and astute advances, but is the average joe jealous of the singaporean?

sorry, kind of like this anonymity