On Sat, 5 Jul 2003, Josh Dougherty wrote:
> "Constantinople" <constantinopoli@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:Xns93AF709F2D9B215123098@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > "Josh Dougherty" <jdoc1357b9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> > news:kStNa.26684$C83.2438056@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > >> Consider that Bill Gates is very rich. Nevertheless, by enslaving
me
> > >> all he stands to gain is the approximate value of my work. But I
> > >> already make the approximate value of my work. And moreover, if I
> > >> were his slave, I would not be anywhere near as productive as I am
> > >> now, being a free person. Therefore he would have far less to gain,
> > >> financially, from enslaving me than I have to gain, financially, by
> > >> being free. Therefore if he hired a mafioso to capture me and I
hired
> > >> a mafioso to defend me, I would be willing to offer my mafioso more
> > >> money than he would be willing to offer his mafioso.
> > >
> > > Ha ha. So, if we all just hire a private mafioso to defend
ourselves,
> > > we're all fine.
> >
> > No, I was using Guilherme's word to communicate with him.
> >
> > > ce again, the people with no money to hire mafioso
> > > are invisible from the analysis, and become Bill's slave.
> >
> > No, I just told you exactly why a person's wealth doesn't make a
> difference
> > in this equation. Gates is super-rich, I quite possibly have no money.
>
> But what you said doesn't make any sense. In your scenario, if he
hires a
> mafioso to enslave you, you supposedly hire one to stop his mafioso. "I
> would be willing to offer my mafioso more money than he would". If you
> "quite possibly have no money", then how do you offer your mafioso more
> money? This is only the beginning with what's wrong with your
explanation.
>
under anarcho capitalism, we all have great credit ratings.
-gr
|
