"The NAP is the principle, but the philosophy involves recognizing the economic effects of violating the NAP are always worse than respecting it."
Why are they always worse? A very contrived example: a company choosing to pay significantly lower wages for, say, black people does not violate NAP. They might not like it, but nobody forces them to work for that particular company, right? But is this a global economic benefit?
Free of regulations (most of which do violate NAP), entities with power will search for a local optimum, and the thing with local optima is that they can be surprisingly low, but impossible to get out of without external force.
>"Why are they always worse? A very contrived example:"
Thank you for providing an example, but your example is not of someone violating the NAP. I was saying that if you violate the NAP the result is worse than if you don't. An example: Minimum wage laws increase unemployment, by preventing jobs that would otherwise exist from being created.
Your example of a company discriminating in pay is, unfortunately, consistent with the NAP. The NAP doesn't ensure people make the best choices, it just draws a line between moral and immoral. I believe that a company that discriminates in this way will do worse than companies that don't.
I'm not clear what the point you're making about optima is... I don't think that discrimination is optimal, even if it is moral.
Why are they always worse? A very contrived example: a company choosing to pay significantly lower wages for, say, black people does not violate NAP. They might not like it, but nobody forces them to work for that particular company, right? But is this a global economic benefit?
Free of regulations (most of which do violate NAP), entities with power will search for a local optimum, and the thing with local optima is that they can be surprisingly low, but impossible to get out of without external force.