\n\n\n" }Anthropomorphizing the collective \u00e2\u0080\u0093 that is, assuming that this mythically single-minded collective possesses a set of ordered preferences that are analogous to a set of ordered preferences of a sort that is possessed and acted upon by each flesh-and-blood individual \u00e2\u0080\u0093 and assuming, in addition, that actions by the state faithfully reflect and pursue these preferences, is a never-ending source of deep confusion.
\nIf it is stipulated that Jones and Smith are one entity \u00e2\u0080\u0093 that Jones and Smith are to each other much like a person\u00e2\u0080\u0099s left side is to that same person\u00e2\u0080\u0099s right side \u00e2\u0080\u0093 then if Jones, say, steals $1,000 from Smith, no relevant harm is done. \u00c2\u00a0Jones and Smith are assured by some furiously typing professor that they \u00e2\u0080\u009cstole\u00e2\u0080\u009d it from themselves. \u00c2\u00a0Smith possesses $1,000 less than before; Jones possesses $1,000 more than before. \u00c2\u00a0Being, by assumption, the same entity \u00e2\u0080\u0093 \u00e2\u0080\u009cJonessmith\u00e2\u0080\u009d \u00e2\u0080\u0093 this collective entity Jonessmith bothers itself unnecessarily if it should worry that it might be made worse off if its Jones part routinely snatches resources from its Smith part.
\nLikewise, if the Jones part borrows money from the Smith part: the furiously typing professor \u00e2\u0080\u0093 who sees \u00e2\u0080\u009cJonessmith,\u00e2\u0080\u009d rather than Jones\u00c2\u00a0and Smith \u00e2\u0080\u0093 concludes that the Jones\u00e2\u0080\u0099s-part obligation to repay the Smith-part cannot possibly be a burden to \u00e2\u0080\u009cJonessmith\u00e2\u0080\u009d because, well, Jonessmith is a single entity. \u00c2\u00a0It owes it to itself. \u00c2\u00a0Therefore, concludes the furiously typing professor, it is naive to worry about the amounts of money that the Jones part of Jonessmith owes to the Smith part of Jonessmeith \u00e2\u0080\u0093 and, hence, equally naive to worry that the Jones part of Jonessmith might today be borrowing (quaint word here!) too much from the Smith part of Jonessmith.
\n