Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mck-csc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!think!mck-csc!bmg From: bmg@mck-csc.UUCP (Bernard M. Gunther) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Aggression not cost effective? Message-ID: <135@mck-csc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 26-Sep-85 16:15:04 EDT Article-I.D.: mck-csc.135 Posted: Thu Sep 26 16:15:04 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 1-Oct-85 08:28:12 EDT Organization: McKinsey & Company, Cambridge Systems Center Lines: 15 I've been hearing people mention that aggression is not cost effective. I must disagree on this. It can be most cost effective, especially under certain circumstances. If you look backto the 100 Year War, Gustas Adolfus (sp?) had a very interesting way of paying his troups. He said, while sitting outside an enemy town, something to the effect of: "Troops, you pay is inside that town. Go for it." He did not loose money nor very many battles. I will agree that aggression is not effective in increasing the net worth over all parties involved, but it does change the distribution significantly. An organized band will probably defeat a disorganized band. Libertaria will have serious trouble with any government with which the people in that government are happy. Bernie Gunther