In which I miss the point spectacularly
"For 10% of your time, you’re enslaved; for 10% of your time, you own slaves."
Huh, how is this possible? Didn't slave-owners often have multiple slaves? Shouldn't it mean the % of time enslaved should be larger than the % of time owning slaves?
Did Lay make any attempt to end slavery via non-extra means before resorting to the strategy of being extra?
Holy shit this is making me want to read the book way more than Scott's review of it.
"For 10% of your time, you’re enslaved; for 10% of your time, you own slaves."
Huh, how is this possible? Didn't slave-owners often have multiple slaves? Shouldn't it mean the % of time enslaved should be larger than the % of time owning slaves?
Did Lay make any attempt to end slavery via non-extra means before resorting to the strategy of being extra?
Holy shit this is making me want to read the book way more than Scott's review of it.