Subject: Re: slavery and freedom
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:51:00 +0900

Thomas Lord writes:
 > John McDermott wrote:
 > > Your last statement is indeed true. However you miss the issue. A 
 > > situation perceived by both parties as win-win is not exploitation (if 
 > > both parties are of sound mind and there is no coercion).  Even if an 
 > > impartial outside observer does not see the win-win nature, and thinks 
 > > one side is getting a better deal, if it is still win-win to the 
 > > participants, it is not exploitation.

A crucial assumption is missing: that both sides have access to
similar information.

 > I strongly disagree.   It is easy to imagine (and observe) situations 
 > where both parties perceive a win-win but there is no doubt exploitation 
 > is happening.   Your claim seems silly.

In the case in point, I think the missing assumption is pretty much
satisfied.  Both pro and con are arguable, but neither seems a priori
silly.

 > > [And the notion of win-win is really all about perception isn't
 > > it?]

Of course not.  That way lies 1984.

 > I dis-recommend reading any more Ayn Rand :-)

A critical reading of Ayn Rand is good for your mental health.  I'm
not sure of the relevance, though, since Rand insisted on a philosophy
of objectivism, not of "perceptionism".