Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lhn5 who wrote (10401)	12/21/2007 12:04:56 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

A defect in your example is that do you think that Drug Dealer A's boss cares or suffers when Dealer A is shot in the head? How does this have anything to do with Hogg's argument? Sounds like socialism anyway. That is, you're looking at transactions as though they have some rider of caring in them. One must not care about one's customer within the transaction. Else, it would lead to "unfairness". What is "unfairness"? Greasing the wheel to manipulate in order to accomplish "ripoff". Ironically, "ripoff" can't be defined.

To: Lhn5 who wrote (10401)	12/21/2007 1:54:15 PM
From: CapitalistHogg™	Respond to of 24758

Dealer A represents, in this example, everyone acting in their own self interest benefiting the group. It does not. Dealer B represents everyone acting in their own self interest AND also acting in the best interests of the group. It definitely does. Dealer A was a soldier but his 'leader' enforced the wrong code or laws. Dealer B was a 'leader' and enforces code AND accepts code of acting in the best interests of the group. So you are sorta right i didn't exactly compare apples to apples.