Arguing Abstraction (tangent from "We Don't Want Freedom")

Abstractions are more often beneficial than they are detrimental.

Abstraction is the difference between typing on an iPad and typing onto a typewriter.

The taco vendor, for example, isn't trading Tacos directly for hamburgers and shelter, they're trading it for the permission to change the numbers stored in payment processor 1 who now and only now has the permission to request the changing of numbers in several communicating counting machines managed (via in house network administrators, who in turn manage via technicians (who were taught by other people) and motoring software (which was developed by other people and which relies on libraries and APIs created by yet other people)) by bank 1, which now and only now have permission to request the change of some numbers (via a complex network of trillions of communicating counting machines manage by (depending on the path taken by bank 1's numbers) any number of thousands of different companies, which are each composed of thousands of employees...). And now I'm bored of writing, so to wrap things up, the payment processor tells bank 1 (the customer's bank) to move some money into bank 2 (the taco owner's bank) who then moves some of that money into bank 3 (the taco vendor's bank) who is mugged by some jerk on the way home who makes off with taco vendor's wallet, but gets nothing because the debit card in the wallet holds no value to society without the permission of bank 3, which in turn requires permission from taco vendor. The thief can't get permission from the taco vendor, not that it matters because T. Vendor calls the bank and tells them to stop honoring the old card and to issue T. V. a new card, which can then be used to move numbers around in exchange for hamburgers.

If TV had directly traded Tacos for hamburgers, the theif would have gotten away with something that has value. Then TV would be 1 PreferredFoodUnit poorer, and the theif would only be 0.5 PreferredFoodUnit richer, because the theif prefers hot dogs. Not to mention, the trade value of an hour-older, third-hand Hamburger is lower that that of a newer, more 'original' hamburger. When TV had what was his, the cumulative wealth of the two parties was 1/2 (one wealth unit and two people) or 50% put another way. After the theft, the cumulative wealth of the two parties was 0.5/2, or 25% put another way. This is not to support the notion of "trickle down economics" as if the rich are benevolent gods creating opertunities for the poor to be taken care of. If TV had never eaten that hamburger and used it's calories to fuel his hobby of building bird houses, slightly increasing, diversifying, lowering the cost of, and otherwise improving the birdhouse market, then Hot Dog Maker would have spent more time looking for the specific birdhouse she wanted, and less time making hot dogs (and therfore improving the hot dog market for Theif and everyone else who prefers hot dogs (and also everyone who benefits from the contributions of people who prefer hot dogs)). If TV had instead put his hamburger in a great pile of other hamburgers, then the value of that individual hamburger that Theif didn't steal is much less to TV, and also Theif gains no benefit from not stealing the hamburger. Not to support the notion of "Robin Hood economics" either, but instead to encourage the production and consumption of all from all for all.