1.6
Do not some men possess enemies? Of course; some in fact possess many. Shall we include their enemies in their possessions? It would be ridiculous, surely, if one actually received a salary for increasing the number of a man’s enemies!
1.7
Because, you know, we supposed a man’s estate to be the same as his property. To be sure—meaning thereby the good things that he possesses. No, of course I don’t call any bad thing that he may possess property. You seem to use the word property of whatever is profitable to its owner. Certainly; but what is harmful I regard as loss rather than wealth.
1.8
Yes, and consequently if a man buys a horse and doesn’t know how to manage it, and so keeps on getting thrown and injuring himself by trying to ride it, the horse is not wealth to him, I presume? No, if we assume that wealth is a good thing. It follows that land is not wealth either to a man who works it in such a way that his work results in loss. To be sure: even land is not wealth if it makes us starve instead of supporting us.
1.9
And the same will hold good of sheep, will it not? if a man loses through ignorance of sheep farming, his sheep too will not be wealth to him? I think not. It seems, then, that your view is this: what is profitable is wealth, what is harmful is not wealth. Quite so.
