KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (09/10/86)
From: Lynn Gazis <SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Well, a person with enough money could bribe everybody not to hire
me, ...
This is true. Boycotts are perfectly legitimate. Boycotts of
individuals as well as of companies are fine.
Why would anyone wish to do this? And how much would it cost? If
you apply at 100 companies, and if your worth to them is about twice
your salary (i.e. you and the company would benefit equally by your
working there) he would have to pay these companies more than 100
times your salary. Not just once, but every year. And if you apply
at a 101st place, he must now pay your salary again, to the 101st
company. Unless the 101st company didn't get the word, or simply
refused to go along with such bribes. In which case they would hire
you and the rich man would be out millions of dollars with no gain at
all.
Each time you apply at a company, you are essentially fining him the
value of your salary. Who is hurting whom?
Why is he doing this? If he simply wants you to not work anywhere
for some reason, wouldn't it be cheaper to offer to pay YOU twice what
you are worth to any employer? Or is his goal simply to hurt you for
no reason? I find it very hard to believe that anyone could become
wealthy if he is in the habit of spending millions of dollars to keep
individuals unemployed. And if someone did somehow become that
wealthy, he would not remain wealthy for very long if he had such
expensive and irrational habits.
If he just wants to give you a hard time, there are plenty of
cheaper and equally legal ways. For instance, in today's system, he
can take you to court and sue you on some pretext.
Note that this form of bribery is ALREADY perfectly legal. But it
never seems to happen. I don't see why it would become more prevalent
under a libertarian system.
As long as all the land is taken and there are people who can't
afford any land of their own, money involves the power to deprive
people of their livelihood.
The more land is valued, the more it costs. It is true that land
costs money. Quite a bit of money in some places. So? I don't own
any land, and I am not starving. What are you advocating? That land
be given to anyone who asks for some? Who is to pay for it? I don't
think I understand your point.
If a small enough clique of people own everything, ...
This can't happen unless everyone else freely traded them everything
for something (which makes no sense, since what could they have
received in return for "everything" that was worth more to them than
"everything"?) or unless the small clique coerced this wealth from
others. The only system I know of where a small clique owns
everything is socialism.
or if everyone shares the same prejudice against me, then I am out
of luck, whatever I do.
This is true, I suppose, but why should everyone share such a
prejudice? You might as well complain that if everyone conspired to
murder you that the murder would not be preventable and would not be
punished. None of which has anything to do with any system I
advocate, or with any system I can imagine.
...Keith
-------