>"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

>"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.