"The conclusion that a person’s property should be regarded as an extension of themselves seems to be particularly troubling. Is your computer a part of your body? Everyone would reject this".
This is a bit of a strawman argument. Off course any sane person rejects that any external object (X) is part of his/hers body. It is a figure of speech. The whole point is that if a person has used his labour productively on some object, it has likely risen enough in value (desirability) that someone else would prefer the object in its new form, rather than in its original one. Nobody claims property rights of air, since it is abundant and everyone can use it just by being alive. No "additional labour" (apart from breathing) is necessary (no mixing of object and labour). If no one ever labored, no property rights would be necessary. Property rights are an effect of (productive) labour. If you were not going to labour in any way, why would you, say, claim rights to a certain land area? You would not. The point is, it is not the land, but the produce you can make of the land that you claim property rights to. And you can be very productive in a small area, while you can also be unproductive in a very large area. USSR had tons of land !! But no real productive labour. If two persons go out in the wood and homestead each an equal, neighboring land area. One person just shuffles a few sticks together and some leafs so sleep on. The other guy labours for days creating flint axes, felling trees, collecting and preparing stones for a floor etc... he creates a nice sturdy house all by himself. Now would it not be fair to say that the guy building the house had earned his "right" to live in that house? He has only used his own hands. He has only used goods found on his own land or maybe goods he has voluntarily traded with others (and that trade would never have taken place if he had not produced anything of value to others). The guy with the house has, as a figure of speech, mixed his labour with nature and they must be his property. If he had chopped all the wood up in small no good chunks, it would not have been of value to anyone, not even himself. So his neighbour would just have shook his head and never minded his "work". Property rights are really about taking responsibility. Of the billion dollars, maybe only a few millions is actually in the hands of the owner. The rest is out in the market working as capital for other entrepreneurs who will satisfy some other markets, like through shares, bank loans or direct capital investment
---
"The assumption that people have free will is invalid. After all, a person is made of matter. Matter behaves according to physical laws which are very well understood. Thus, free will is an illusion"
Your will is only as "free" as your genes lets it be. We are containers for the survival of our genes. They define our will. So no - a free will does not exist, in my opinion, and that might be a good thing. The genes are a library of millions of years of trials and errors, so you´d better let them do their thing ... let the will of your genes be free - as long as they do not want to aggress against others. Thats where morality comes in !! (UPB).
---
"Capitalists tend to think of this self-defense as being applicable in a broad way, since they see their property as being part of themselves. Socialists, on the other hand, feel that self-defense is only valid when the concept is used in a more narrow sense of the word, which only includes their physical bodies. Given that I’m well aware of the unintended harm that the use of force can have, I definitely favor the socialist position on this issue."
So you are saying that anyone can take anything from anyone all the time, except except for bodyparts - and that is moral?
This is a contradiction. Why would anyone be interested in any object that is placed in closer proximity to me and that i may also have spent my labour on? .. because it has value to that other person. Otherwise he wouldn´t care. If another person moves that "valuable" obejct to be in closer proximity to his body than mine and he now has the benefits of the value and i do not. That is stealing - not of the object but the value. No matter how many political ideologies you throw in the mix. This is stealing. And two persons cannot steal from each other simultaneously and both be moral. One of them by definition must be a victim.
---
"Anarchists can thus be seen as simply promoting “Kindergarten ethics”"
Kind of sophist argumentation. Trying to indicate that NAP is childish. Kindergarten ethics should off course be identical to ethics in any other place i society.
---
"Supporters of anarcho-capitalism generally give the usual economic argument that if everyone makes voluntary decisions based on their individual self-interest, then everyone will be better off. Adherents of anarcho-socialism, on the other hand, think that individuals should take a more humanitarian approach to their decision making"
Manipulation of concepts and lack of argument. There is no logical or imperical way to deduct that socialism is more "humanitarian" than capitalism/voluntarism. That is pure prejudice and/or indoctrination. It is not enough to state implicit that "socialism is more humanitarian" - that does not make it true. All empirical data you can dig up points in the opposite direction. Take China as a glaring example. 30 years ago it was a hole in the ground, now it is the biggest wealth boom in history. The receipe is so simple ... just let people be and let them keep what they produce. The state (socialism) does not produce food (at least not where i come from). And still there are plenty of shops with all kinds of foods, i can hardly imagine, that some people produce voluntarily for me!!!
---
"The next thing to notice is that “pure capitalist” and “pure socialist” are two endpoints on a spectrum, and there is a continuum of possibilities between the two extremes"
NO. That is a false "dichotomy". There is "non-agression" and then there is "some degree of agression". There is "Individualism (freedom)" or " degrees of collectivism". Freedom is NOT an extreme. Freedom is the real state of nature. It would be akin to say that having no cancer at all is extreme. Infact no cancer is the optimal condition while 100% cancer is the extreme.
---
"My wife was born in the countryside of Communitst China in the mid 1970s, and she points out that, even there, it wasn’t entirely communist. They still used money, each family got a piece of land, and of course they still had possessions (clothing, etc.). What they did do is that each family in the village pooled their crops together when they were sold at the market, and each family was repaid an amount proportional to the number of people in that family. But she points out that there were still additional ways for people to make a little bit more money, as individuals"
So you are basically saying that socialism is not desirable. "They had some freedom". It makes no sense at all to claim socialism works, because people had some freedom? As i stated above, the fasle dichotomy of this pragmatic "middle of the road" mixed economy" is not correct. If just a little freedom is preferable to force, then all force must be eliminated. It is a logical inevitability.
---
"Money as an intermediary of exchange is likely to exist at all point along the spectrum except for the “pure socialist” endpoint. At this point we have what is known as a “gift economy” (which is the ideal of anarcho-socialists, with no money, no markets, and no central planning). Personally, I see the elimination of money as being a worthwhile long-term goal of the human species"
I have always found this demonisation of money strange. Money is just a practical arrangement, nothing more. Money is not moral. A "gift economy" - what is that??? A gift is one person handing over (some of) HIS PROPERTY to another person voluntarily, without any expectance of reprocity in form of trade. In other words, there has to be property rights in "gift economy", otherwise it is just "everything is up for grabs". That always ends up with the few in power having all the rights to property and everyone else have none. Take any of the old communist regimes as empirical data.
---
"How society chooses how to manage (or not) this transaction is fundamental to how it operates"
Society is a concept. It cannot choose, manage, operate or transact !!
---
"If there is a government, the government can use force to stop transactions which would have otherwise taken place, or to force transactions to occur which wouldn’t have happened in the free market. In a voluntary society, this is not an option.
Government is a concept, it can not stop or force transactions. Only persons can do that, by using force. And how do these people (in "government") know if a "transaction" is desirable or not? That would take the knowledge of the personal desires of millions of people.
---
"The main role of government in a capitalist system is to deal with market failure"
What ?? Capitalism and Governement is like oil and water. Government can ONLY destroy something in the market (in short or long term). Market failures are a symptom of government involvement in the market. State coercion always distorts the market and sometimes crashes it. The market functions best in total freedom because it IS freedom. Capitalism is not an ideology like socialism is, thats why the afore mentioned capitalism-socialism dichotomy is false.
---
"Market failures mainly include:
1. externalities (which is the effect that voluntary transactions have on a third party – banks giving out risky loans which can disrupt the entire system is an example; the banks takes into account the effect the loan not being paid off will have on themselves, but not for the market as a whole)
2. information asymmetries (when one party involved in a transaction has more information than the other),
3. non-competitive markets, public goods (items such as roads and national defense which can be shared and for which exclusion is difficult, often resulting in “free rider” problems),
4. instability (periods of high unemployment have plagued modern economies in the past; the extent to which the government can reduce the length and severity of these periods is debatable)
5. income inequality (or lack of a safety net). The most common objection to anarchism, namely that there would be nothing to stop armed thugs from taking over the neighborhood, can be seen as one possible market failure, although there are ways of dealing with this (anarcho-capitalists often discuss private defense companies in competition with one another).
==>
1. Ask yourself why banks are giving out risky loans? Could there be some state monetary interventions in the economy?
2. That is mostly the case in every transaction. One of the downsides of the statist indoctrination mentality is that people are pulled away from contact with the market and thus have less insight into value/prices etc. Expansions of the money supply/inflation makes it harder to keep track also.
3. Strawman. In a free market everything is competitive as long as someone competes for market share. Often that is a good place to look for new profitable business. Look for monopolies and compete with them.
4. Who creates "un-employment" .. well the state, who else. The market creates employment. Is that so hard to grasp?
5. Arghh .. come on. Armed thugs !!? What about those who steal 50% of your income !!! Are they armed? Could they be classified as thugs? You gotte do better than that mate
These Keynesian "market failures" are always pulled out to justify state intervention in the market. But then - why do you care? If you need something - go make it yourself. Why stick guns in peoples faces, who VOLUNTARILY produce things for YOU in the first place?? Why do you care if their market may crash now and then? That is not your headache anyway. Who the heck do you think you are?
---
"If you grow some vegetables in your garden and exchange them for some of the fruit off your neighbor’s tree, that is not capitalism"
Well i dont care if you sling that ideology called Capitalism on some voluntary transaction in a free market, be that with money or by barter. You simply do not understand money. I cannot stress enough the importance of understanding this concept. Money has been around for thousands of years and still most people have no clue what it really is. Its a disgrace. And it is in my opinion the one of the biggest problems for humanity.
---
"Essential to capitalism is the ownership of property (or means of production) that is not intended for one’s own personal use, but rather to be used by workers that are paid a wage"
oohh .. "profit is bad". If you produce more than you can eat yourself and try to sell it to help others, then you are a "bad person". Ok so that means that everyone should each produce everything they need themselves? Do you have any idea how inefficient that is? And this is ONLY because you do not understand money and you likely have been indoctrinated to think that profit is immoral. But if profit is immoral, then why do you work? Work is profitable compared to lying in bed all day.
---
"According to anarcho-capitalism, property owners, and only property owners, have the right to initiate real physical force against someone on their property (to get them to leave). This is a legal monopoly with the right to initiate force in a geographical area"
Noooh !!! It is he who enters a property (IF THAT IS SOMEWHERE WHICH HE HAS NO RIGHT OR AGREEMENT TO BE IN), who initiates the "violence". Now that does not mean that he should be shot on sight off course, but a threat of retalliation would be proper to start with and then gradually progressing in "violence" until the trespasser either leaves or ultimately is killed for trying to attack the owner. Anyway there is nothing "legal" in anarchy. That is statist concept.
---
"Furthermore, in an anarcho-capitalist society, and particularly in a city, every place is owned by someone. There is no “public space”. Thus, if you’re not wealthy enough to buy your own property in a city there, you’ll always be on someone else’s property"
Fallacious argument. That everything is owned does not mean that everyone must own something (ie. land). That is no different from how it is now. You can rent your car, rent an appartment etc.. It is just that SOMEBOBY MUST own it. There must be no "commons" (the tragedy of..) since it leads to neglect. Another fallacy - you are not someone elses property because you rent your car and your appartment??? That is only in a statist society that will tax you at the point of a gun !! Lots of people will probably prefer not to own anything in a free sociaety. Again - ownership is "responsibility" for things of value. It is making shure that it is not squandered and misused. that would clearly show in the missing profits - which again points out the importance of profit.
---
"You can also consider the extreme situation where a group of wealthy individuals collude and buy up all the land in an area. Then the unfortunate people living there will be under their rule: obey us or be evicted"
My god. Incredible. No one can buy anything unless the SELLER IS WILLING TO SELL. There is no state expropriation in a free society. But if buyer and seller can come to an agreement, then both parties must be satisfied. But then the seller must leave the property, because it is no longer his. Why would that make him a "slave" ???? But why would a potential buyer buy the land in the frist place? Not to harrass the people that are present there now!! That would be just about the worst reason to buy land. No they buy it because the use they can make of it is more profitable than the one who sells it. Maybe he can buy some rocky land fairly cheap and build some homes that those "poor" people can rent.
---
"Capitalism fails to recognize that human desires are of a social nature, and thus rising wages may not produce greater satisfaction if the standard of living of the capitalist has risen even more"
Wrong . Human desires are limitless in all directions and areas. What makes us happy is truth, love and happiness, but that is up to YOU my friend, not the free market. As i said, capitalism is not an ideology, it is an effect of freedom.
---
"Socialists feel that the large inequality in income inherent in capitalism is despicable"
So you think that entrepreneurs put all their billions in their pillow and keep them away from the "poor" people? No - they invest them in productivity, that makes even more things that you are interested in. He just has the responsibility for more resources than others. His bonus is that he buys himself a big car, a big house ogr a boat or something - that is his "bonus" for making so many people richer by either creating a job for them or goods they can buy.
Rene Kejlskov Jorgensen
"The conclusion that a person’s property should be regarded as an extension of themselves seems to be particularly troubling. Is your computer a part of your body? Everyone would reject this". This is a bit of a strawman argument. Off course any sane person rejects that any external object (X) is part of his/hers body. It is a figure of speech. The whole point is that if a person has used his labour productively on some object, it has likely risen enough in value (desirability) that someone else would prefer the object in its new form, rather than in its original one. Nobody claims property rights of air, since it is abundant and everyone can use it just by being alive. No "additional labour" (apart from breathing) is necessary (no mixing of object and labour). If no one ever labored, no property rights would be necessary. Property rights are an effect of (productive) labour. If you were not going to labour in any way, why would you, say, claim rights to a certain land area? You would not. The point is, it is not the land, but the produce you can make of the land that you claim property rights to. And you can be very productive in a small area, while you can also be unproductive in a very large area. USSR had tons of land !! But no real productive labour. If two persons go out in the wood and homestead each an equal, neighboring land area. One person just shuffles a few sticks together and some leafs so sleep on. The other guy labours for days creating flint axes, felling trees, collecting and preparing stones for a floor etc... he creates a nice sturdy house all by himself. Now would it not be fair to say that the guy building the house had earned his "right" to live in that house? He has only used his own hands. He has only used goods found on his own land or maybe goods he has voluntarily traded with others (and that trade would never have taken place if he had not produced anything of value to others). The guy with the house has, as a figure of speech, mixed his labour with nature and they must be his property. If he had chopped all the wood up in small no good chunks, it would not have been of value to anyone, not even himself. So his neighbour would just have shook his head and never minded his "work". Property rights are really about taking responsibility. Of the billion dollars, maybe only a few millions is actually in the hands of the owner. The rest is out in the market working as capital for other entrepreneurs who will satisfy some other markets, like through shares, bank loans or direct capital investment --- "The assumption that people have free will is invalid. After all, a person is made of matter. Matter behaves according to physical laws which are very well understood. Thus, free will is an illusion" Your will is only as "free" as your genes lets it be. We are containers for the survival of our genes. They define our will. So no - a free will does not exist, in my opinion, and that might be a good thing. The genes are a library of millions of years of trials and errors, so you´d better let them do their thing ... let the will of your genes be free - as long as they do not want to aggress against others. Thats where morality comes in !! (UPB). --- "Capitalists tend to think of this self-defense as being applicable in a broad way, since they see their property as being part of themselves. Socialists, on the other hand, feel that self-defense is only valid when the concept is used in a more narrow sense of the word, which only includes their physical bodies. Given that I’m well aware of the unintended harm that the use of force can have, I definitely favor the socialist position on this issue." So you are saying that anyone can take anything from anyone all the time, except except for bodyparts - and that is moral? This is a contradiction. Why would anyone be interested in any object that is placed in closer proximity to me and that i may also have spent my labour on? .. because it has value to that other person. Otherwise he wouldn´t care. If another person moves that "valuable" obejct to be in closer proximity to his body than mine and he now has the benefits of the value and i do not. That is stealing - not of the object but the value. No matter how many political ideologies you throw in the mix. This is stealing. And two persons cannot steal from each other simultaneously and both be moral. One of them by definition must be a victim. --- "Anarchists can thus be seen as simply promoting “Kindergarten ethics”" Kind of sophist argumentation. Trying to indicate that NAP is childish. Kindergarten ethics should off course be identical to ethics in any other place i society. --- "Supporters of anarcho-capitalism generally give the usual economic argument that if everyone makes voluntary decisions based on their individual self-interest, then everyone will be better off. Adherents of anarcho-socialism, on the other hand, think that individuals should take a more humanitarian approach to their decision making" Manipulation of concepts and lack of argument. There is no logical or imperical way to deduct that socialism is more "humanitarian" than capitalism/voluntarism. That is pure prejudice and/or indoctrination. It is not enough to state implicit that "socialism is more humanitarian" - that does not make it true. All empirical data you can dig up points in the opposite direction. Take China as a glaring example. 30 years ago it was a hole in the ground, now it is the biggest wealth boom in history. The receipe is so simple ... just let people be and let them keep what they produce. The state (socialism) does not produce food (at least not where i come from). And still there are plenty of shops with all kinds of foods, i can hardly imagine, that some people produce voluntarily for me!!! --- "The next thing to notice is that “pure capitalist” and “pure socialist” are two endpoints on a spectrum, and there is a continuum of possibilities between the two extremes" NO. That is a false "dichotomy". There is "non-agression" and then there is "some degree of agression". There is "Individualism (freedom)" or " degrees of collectivism". Freedom is NOT an extreme. Freedom is the real state of nature. It would be akin to say that having no cancer at all is extreme. Infact no cancer is the optimal condition while 100% cancer is the extreme. --- "My wife was born in the countryside of Communitst China in the mid 1970s, and she points out that, even there, it wasn’t entirely communist. They still used money, each family got a piece of land, and of course they still had possessions (clothing, etc.). What they did do is that each family in the village pooled their crops together when they were sold at the market, and each family was repaid an amount proportional to the number of people in that family. But she points out that there were still additional ways for people to make a little bit more money, as individuals" So you are basically saying that socialism is not desirable. "They had some freedom". It makes no sense at all to claim socialism works, because people had some freedom? As i stated above, the fasle dichotomy of this pragmatic "middle of the road" mixed economy" is not correct. If just a little freedom is preferable to force, then all force must be eliminated. It is a logical inevitability. --- "Money as an intermediary of exchange is likely to exist at all point along the spectrum except for the “pure socialist” endpoint. At this point we have what is known as a “gift economy” (which is the ideal of anarcho-socialists, with no money, no markets, and no central planning). Personally, I see the elimination of money as being a worthwhile long-term goal of the human species" I have always found this demonisation of money strange. Money is just a practical arrangement, nothing more. Money is not moral. A "gift economy" - what is that??? A gift is one person handing over (some of) HIS PROPERTY to another person voluntarily, without any expectance of reprocity in form of trade. In other words, there has to be property rights in "gift economy", otherwise it is just "everything is up for grabs". That always ends up with the few in power having all the rights to property and everyone else have none. Take any of the old communist regimes as empirical data. --- "How society chooses how to manage (or not) this transaction is fundamental to how it operates" Society is a concept. It cannot choose, manage, operate or transact !! --- "If there is a government, the government can use force to stop transactions which would have otherwise taken place, or to force transactions to occur which wouldn’t have happened in the free market. In a voluntary society, this is not an option. Government is a concept, it can not stop or force transactions. Only persons can do that, by using force. And how do these people (in "government") know if a "transaction" is desirable or not? That would take the knowledge of the personal desires of millions of people. --- "The main role of government in a capitalist system is to deal with market failure" What ?? Capitalism and Governement is like oil and water. Government can ONLY destroy something in the market (in short or long term). Market failures are a symptom of government involvement in the market. State coercion always distorts the market and sometimes crashes it. The market functions best in total freedom because it IS freedom. Capitalism is not an ideology like socialism is, thats why the afore mentioned capitalism-socialism dichotomy is false. --- "Market failures mainly include: 1. externalities (which is the effect that voluntary transactions have on a third party – banks giving out risky loans which can disrupt the entire system is an example; the banks takes into account the effect the loan not being paid off will have on themselves, but not for the market as a whole) 2. information asymmetries (when one party involved in a transaction has more information than the other), 3. non-competitive markets, public goods (items such as roads and national defense which can be shared and for which exclusion is difficult, often resulting in “free rider” problems), 4. instability (periods of high unemployment have plagued modern economies in the past; the extent to which the government can reduce the length and severity of these periods is debatable) 5. income inequality (or lack of a safety net). The most common objection to anarchism, namely that there would be nothing to stop armed thugs from taking over the neighborhood, can be seen as one possible market failure, although there are ways of dealing with this (anarcho-capitalists often discuss private defense companies in competition with one another). ==> 1. Ask yourself why banks are giving out risky loans? Could there be some state monetary interventions in the economy? 2. That is mostly the case in every transaction. One of the downsides of the statist indoctrination mentality is that people are pulled away from contact with the market and thus have less insight into value/prices etc. Expansions of the money supply/inflation makes it harder to keep track also. 3. Strawman. In a free market everything is competitive as long as someone competes for market share. Often that is a good place to look for new profitable business. Look for monopolies and compete with them. 4. Who creates "un-employment" .. well the state, who else. The market creates employment. Is that so hard to grasp? 5. Arghh .. come on. Armed thugs !!? What about those who steal 50% of your income !!! Are they armed? Could they be classified as thugs? You gotte do better than that mate These Keynesian "market failures" are always pulled out to justify state intervention in the market. But then - why do you care? If you need something - go make it yourself. Why stick guns in peoples faces, who VOLUNTARILY produce things for YOU in the first place?? Why do you care if their market may crash now and then? That is not your headache anyway. Who the heck do you think you are? --- "If you grow some vegetables in your garden and exchange them for some of the fruit off your neighbor’s tree, that is not capitalism" Well i dont care if you sling that ideology called Capitalism on some voluntary transaction in a free market, be that with money or by barter. You simply do not understand money. I cannot stress enough the importance of understanding this concept. Money has been around for thousands of years and still most people have no clue what it really is. Its a disgrace. And it is in my opinion the one of the biggest problems for humanity. --- "Essential to capitalism is the ownership of property (or means of production) that is not intended for one’s own personal use, but rather to be used by workers that are paid a wage" oohh .. "profit is bad". If you produce more than you can eat yourself and try to sell it to help others, then you are a "bad person". Ok so that means that everyone should each produce everything they need themselves? Do you have any idea how inefficient that is? And this is ONLY because you do not understand money and you likely have been indoctrinated to think that profit is immoral. But if profit is immoral, then why do you work? Work is profitable compared to lying in bed all day. --- "According to anarcho-capitalism, property owners, and only property owners, have the right to initiate real physical force against someone on their property (to get them to leave). This is a legal monopoly with the right to initiate force in a geographical area" Noooh !!! It is he who enters a property (IF THAT IS SOMEWHERE WHICH HE HAS NO RIGHT OR AGREEMENT TO BE IN), who initiates the "violence". Now that does not mean that he should be shot on sight off course, but a threat of retalliation would be proper to start with and then gradually progressing in "violence" until the trespasser either leaves or ultimately is killed for trying to attack the owner. Anyway there is nothing "legal" in anarchy. That is statist concept. --- "Furthermore, in an anarcho-capitalist society, and particularly in a city, every place is owned by someone. There is no “public space”. Thus, if you’re not wealthy enough to buy your own property in a city there, you’ll always be on someone else’s property" Fallacious argument. That everything is owned does not mean that everyone must own something (ie. land). That is no different from how it is now. You can rent your car, rent an appartment etc.. It is just that SOMEBOBY MUST own it. There must be no "commons" (the tragedy of..) since it leads to neglect. Another fallacy - you are not someone elses property because you rent your car and your appartment??? That is only in a statist society that will tax you at the point of a gun !! Lots of people will probably prefer not to own anything in a free sociaety. Again - ownership is "responsibility" for things of value. It is making shure that it is not squandered and misused. that would clearly show in the missing profits - which again points out the importance of profit. --- "You can also consider the extreme situation where a group of wealthy individuals collude and buy up all the land in an area. Then the unfortunate people living there will be under their rule: obey us or be evicted" My god. Incredible. No one can buy anything unless the SELLER IS WILLING TO SELL. There is no state expropriation in a free society. But if buyer and seller can come to an agreement, then both parties must be satisfied. But then the seller must leave the property, because it is no longer his. Why would that make him a "slave" ???? But why would a potential buyer buy the land in the frist place? Not to harrass the people that are present there now!! That would be just about the worst reason to buy land. No they buy it because the use they can make of it is more profitable than the one who sells it. Maybe he can buy some rocky land fairly cheap and build some homes that those "poor" people can rent. --- "Capitalism fails to recognize that human desires are of a social nature, and thus rising wages may not produce greater satisfaction if the standard of living of the capitalist has risen even more" Wrong . Human desires are limitless in all directions and areas. What makes us happy is truth, love and happiness, but that is up to YOU my friend, not the free market. As i said, capitalism is not an ideology, it is an effect of freedom. --- "Socialists feel that the large inequality in income inherent in capitalism is despicable" So you think that entrepreneurs put all their billions in their pillow and keep them away from the "poor" people? No - they invest them in productivity, that makes even more things that you are interested in. He just has the responsibility for more resources than others. His bonus is that he buys himself a big car, a big house ogr a boat or something - that is his "bonus" for making so many people richer by either creating a job for them or goods they can buy. Rene Kejlskov Jorgensen