From: Dan Fabulich (daniel.fabulich@yale.edu)
Date: Fri Apr 03 1998 - 13:40:21 MST
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
At 04:54 AM 4/4/98 +1000, you wrote:
>If their human capital is worth almost nothing to the market (as it is, or
>otherwise their income would be higher), it is also worth nothing to their
>PPA.
A PPA, even a tyrannical one, supported by people who are worth nothing to
their PPA, would not be in business for long. I conclude that they are
worth something, and to the extent that they are, another PPA would be
willing to support them.
>not really, it just means that his growth wouldn't grow, but it does not
>mean that his growth would decline. He could just keep a stable state and
>spend all his profits on his whims.
It would decline relative to those around him, who would continue to grow
at a far faster rate.
>So, again we are trusting the powerful to be wise, just like in a
>dictatorship, monarchy, democracy, or any other form of centralised
>government.
I'm not trusting anybody. I continue to assert that Bill Gates would be
crushed if he tried to pursue the policy of enslavement. The fact that he
knows this is only an additional safeguard.
>the indians will not be hiring anyone cos they will be dead.
Sorry, I'd missed this. I'd thought he was trying to enslave the Indians,
but you had meant he was trying kill them. My mistake...
>And as i
>showed before, Gates could do this with just using his profits. (And if
>you don't like the numbers, change the 10000000 indians for 1 million
>indians, the actual number is inconsequential to the argument as long as
>that number reaches Shocking Proportions (tm))
... but in that case, perhaps you'd best consider that right now he could
just as easily purchase some attack helicopters from a defense contractor
(he could afford it), renounce citizenship in the United States, and then
bribe the current Indian government into not stopping him as he razes their
cities.
As Clark pointed out, if Bill Gates suddenly decided to stop at nothing to
kill you or me or 10 million people out in India, we'd ALL be in serious
trouble, especially under our current political system. Anarcho-capitalism
won't be able to put a stop to this sort of thing; it is not utopian.
However, at least under anarcho-capitalism the Indians could legitimately
employ someone else before Bill Gates decided to launch his assault. They
would not have to support their corrupt government while they were under
attack. As I see it, they would have a chance.
>I addressed this in my previous answer to your mail. The profit to your
>current PPA is greater than the potential profit to the other PPA, etc...
Which I also explicitly disproved. People would pay at least as much if
not more for freedom.
>I don't see this at all. War is expensive for both sides. Your PPA
>doesn't have to fight anyone if no other PPA tries to "rescue you". And
>no other PPA will try because they know that your PPA gets a higher profit
>from you than they would (since that is the point of your rescue,
This, I repeat, is simply untrue.
>otherwise they would try, and probably succeed, but this means that they
>would get more out of you than your current PPA). Analogies with
>nation-states ad infinitum.
Though the conclusion to this point is telling. They WOULD probably
succeed, because they WOULD get more out of you than your current PPA.
That's our whole point.
>Depends what you mean on "this whole land". If you mean the US, i would
>say they get a very nice forced profit from you, and almost complete
>autonomy from any civil law. this is probably more profitable for them
>than forcing a military dictatorship (they are tricky things to run, very
>personnel-intensive, and probably not worth the trouble).
The military gets paid well, but not half as well as they could be. Not to
mention the fact that, at least for now, they only receive the wages which
the politicians allow them to receive. There's no question, the military
would DEFINITELY profit by rejecting this policy and taking over the country.
>Depends on your idea of freedom. I don't see it as something only
>quantitavely rather than qualitatively different from the current state.
I'm not certain what you mean by this, but I can assure you that freedom is
not binary. Someone at the point of a gun is more free than someone
physically strapped to the ground, but clearly less free than someone who
isn't being threatened at all. I see these as quantitative, not
qualitative changes.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3
iQEVAwUBNSVJM/JQm6Y3yAfNAQGVGQf+JLZhEddDVVznJ1FRDbMm0+Zik1hkldis
FVkVUV6RKPg+kS+fVzVC4tafGcwVA5asn89tEKwQfln+ptlBQ9obhvSA0KTuAkhn
VODrOrG8/PE2iYtjIgoPvgP48fmFKZgvGW35CN6E2XB9qfNcP7OhpysAyiuwrotA
NHB6wxZQ1H07ZbOOckkLDYjplUKoJaKJdFuZS67LpjsWimMPedX4gYDmybibH6yh
5SW0Lwe2s0upIBe3BUgwfpPpBlZ8VEO3/9AeWOFlGWTZGi9kal2lbpqsaBBZwWYx
uqZBv/xqLJlSfW4eVhS5iEUa0ucd7Cebn5eD6t5C/9SV0CcoQ3dYyg==
=hBfM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-TODAY IS A GOOD DAY TO LIVE-
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:48:51 MST