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