for sure money will be saved and this will make some people wealthier than others. Who is going to want to go to school for 8 years to become a doctor when they will get paid the same amount if they are mail deliverers. This will create laziness because how much will each person be entitled to of the cooperative dividend, obviously the same amount for everyone regardless of how much work one person. Lets say a bridge is to be built by 20 people by mutual cooperation and everyone has to work equal amount of hours but the problem is that person A, B, C and D are not working as hard as the rest of the people. So when the bridge is complete do all the workers get the same rights on the use of the bridge or do those 4 workers get to use the bridge only at certain times because they did not do the same amount of work or do they get equal use of the bridge because they live in an egalitarian world? I for sure would not allow those four people use it the same as me because if worked my ass off and those four people decided not to work as hard as me they can swim across the river for all I care, during certain times if they have to cross the bridge. So Vimintiz talks about an equality of condition between two people going into a certain negotiation, so an equal amount of distribution will come out from the final cooperative dividend. This would obviously would solve that problem of the bridge, but then Viminitz goes on top ask is there a condition that could satisfy(A.P. p15) this premise. But suppose there are conditions for this premise, which Viminitz states but then says, Any pre-commitment strategy available to one party will likewise be available to her co-player. But these conditions are never satisfied by the real human condition( A.P. p16). So would it be in my self-interest to cooperate with people in order to get a greater cooperative dividend? Well why bother because if I can chop down 5 coconuts from a tree the other guy only 3 and...
