[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If you did not have power or roads or security. It is unlikely you could have much of a business. Unless you were some type of drug cartel
[/quote]
Do you honestly believe the demand for drugs is higher than that for power, roads, and security? I think you would learn that most drug cartels get any power they have from different governments.
Let’s not also pretend that I don’t already pay for power… I pay for roads… And I pay for Police/Fire services.
I pay for those things, they aren’t provided (to me at least) without a (rather significant) cost to me personally. Seeing as I don’t mind paying for those things now, why on earth would I suddenly be opposed to paying for those things if the government didn’t take the money from me?
Silly Contemporary Liberal talking point is silly.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
To me you didn’t build that implies you owe the collective for your success. [/quote]
to a degree all have to owe the collective some degree to their success
[/quote]
Like I said, I think if your honest you have to acknowledged society makes your success possible (at least more possible), but I don’t agree that you owe society for your success.
As an analogy, I don’t owe my parents for my success, but I acknowledge their role in said success. Food, clothing, shelter, advice, and support offered by them for 18+ years helped facilitate that success, without question. [/quote]
You don’t “owe” the collective a damn thing. You can choose to feel you want to give back, but, and this concept escapes many people, your success is in and of itself giving back.
Anytime you have a market that is more free than planned, you cannot achieve success without cooperation. That is, two people acting in their own self interests who benefit from each other, on the most basic level.
SO in any remotely free market/society, you cannot achieve success (legally/morally) without someone else benefitting as well. Therefore by default, your success “pays back” any “debt” to society you had, if you had one in the first place.
Every paycheck you or anyone earns benefits so many people to list the multiplication of that earning would take many posts, and much typing…
[/quote]
This is where you and I disagree. I’m a free market guy, but there are limits just like anything else.
For what it’s worth,“Owe,” is probably not a good word, but every single one of us has been helped in some degree by the collection of individuals known as the United States of America.
I don’t see how this fact is deniable.
To me the argument has always been about the scope and scale of our government.
Yes, I agree in a free (or more free) market two or more parties benefit through cooperation, but there are also other parties that do not benefit. For example, in the BP oils spill, how many “parties” were harmed irrevocably because of BP? Without a centralize government how would Ma & Pa fishery claim damages against BP?
Here’s another example. I invent a replacement for the car. I, through cooperation with others, replace the car. How many people are hurt because of my free market invention? An entire industry is decimated (note, I am not saying we should not adapt, just that not every one benefits, just because, in a free market. There are consequences just like in anything else).
All I have been trying to say is that government is a necessary evil. I have yet to see a model involving 100% free market that can replace government. Let’s just assume things change and we become 330+ million individuals w/out a centralized government. As Nick has said, we rely on one on one contract for all interaction.
How are contracts binding?
Who has the authority to enforce said contract?
What happens when there is a contract dispute?
Here’s a good one, what happens during divorce? Who get’s what stuff and why?
How do we interact on a global scale with countries that still have governments?
Like I have said before, I’m open to the idea I just don’t see how it’s possible.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You don’t “owe” the collective a damn thing.
[/quote]
If you did not have power or roads or security. It is unlikely you could have much of a business. Unless you were some type of drug cartel
[/quote]
Sigh…
You failed to read the rest of the post I see.
There would be no funds in the government coffers, or money for security if I didn’t earn a paycheck and then spend at least a portion of it. In fact without everyone doing so we have none of that. So therefore, purely by interacting in society in a free and non-harmful way, you pay back any debt, as does everyone.
I understand this concept is hard to grasp when you worship the collective, so I don’t expect you to get it. It is also economics 101, so again…[/quote]
No , America was basically agrarian society when it started so you did not need power , every one had a well (BEFORE INDUSTRY POLLUTED GROUND WATER). So all the GOV had to do was tax the crops . They already controlled the ports .
Today’s businesses are different they require Electricity and water for manufacturing . You need freeways to move product from city to city and Police make sure no one comes and strong arms you out of your business .
Those are the reasons why no one wants to move their business to Somalia and the like .
You act as though you are spouting wisdom that is incomprehensible , it’s not
But you spout half the picture and try and sell it as the whole truth
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
For what it’s worth,“Owe,” is probably not a good word, but every single one of us has been helped in some degree by the collection of individuals known as the United States of America. [/quote]
Sure, and every second you aren’t a leech on the system you are helping others. The cup of coffee bought this morning helped the cashier, the store owner, the shipping company, the local water district, the cup maker, their shipping company, the company (and it’s employees) that printed the logo on the cup, the ad agency and its employees that developed the logo, the government through gas tax as you idled in line, the car manufacturer and its employees who build your car, the construction company that built the coffee shop, the contractor that did the build out, the landlord of that property…
Do I really need to go on?
It isn’t. You just aren’t thinking it through. You stop at “the collective” and fail to drill down to the building blocks of “the collective” the individual.
[quote]
Yes, I agree in a free (or more free) market two or more parties benefit through cooperation, but there are also other parties that do not benefit. For example, in the BP oils spill, how many “parties” were harmed irrevocably because of BP? Without a centralize government how would Ma & Pa fishery claim damages against BP? [/quote]
While this has nothing to do with what I’m talking about, I’ll address it in the terms that I’m speaking.
No, the oil spill doesn’t help society, other than those that are paid to clean it up, but net, the spill hurts the world more than it helps.
Life isn’t fair. Not every transaction or happening is going to be a winner.
Long-term, everyone does benefit. Short-term, people that don’t adapt to the change, are harmed significantly. However, in ordered for your invention to replace the car, it has to add more value to society for them to accept and purchase it. As in, the market won’t allow the car to be replaced unless the replacement is better than the car. Therefore people are getting more “bang for their buck” from the replacement. So therefore, on a long enough time line, it is a benefit.
I agree. However, that has nothing to do with whether or not you “owe” society.
You don’t owe the collective anything, unless you are a leech. If you feel obligated to the collective that is another story. I, myself, feel obligated on some levels to do some things. I don’t owe them though…
[quote]
Like I have said before, I’m open to the idea I just don’t see how it’s possible. [/quote]
I’m not Nick, and not making his arguments. I’m talking about what an individual does or does not owe to the collective.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t see how this fact is deniable. [/quote]
We agree , for what it is worth I believe they know it is the truth but it does not suit their purpose
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
No , America was basically agrarian society when it started so you did not need power ,[/quote]
lol, so if they had power infrastructure you don’t think it would be consumed? Or are you pretending the technological understanding and capability to implement electric infrastructure was in place in the time you are talking about?
Okay… Not sure what this has anything to do with what I wrote… Please explain.
Again… Okay.
This doesn’t refute anything I said.
Unless you are foolishly assuming these things wouldn’t be there if not for the government.
[quote]
You act as though you are spouting wisdom that is incomprehensible , it’s not
But you spout half the picture and try and sell it as the whole truth [/quote]
I don’t act as though anything. You are proving here that you don’t even begin to comprehend what I’m speaking about. You didn’t even address my post. You spouted off a bunch of Contemporary Liberal talking points that have no meaning or context.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t see how this fact is deniable. [/quote]
We agree , for what it is worth I believe they know it is the truth but it does not suit their purpose
[/quote]
Sign, I see you have your troll shoes on this morning.
Unless you aren’t part of society, you are “helping” others by benefitting yourself, so therefore you don’t owe anyone anything.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Sure, and every second you aren’t a leech on the system you are helping others. The cup of coffee bought this morning helped the cashier, the store owner, the shipping company, the local water district, the cup maker, their shipping company, the company (and it’s employees) that printed the logo on the cup, the ad agency and its employees that developed the logo, the government through gas tax as you idled in line, the car manufacturer and its employees who build your car, the construction company that built the coffee shop, the contractor that did the build out, the landlord of that property…
Do I really need to go on?
[/quote]
I absolutely agree. I am talking in terms of public goods and services, not in terms of "you didn’t build that. Please see my response to H Factor and the analogy I used in response to Pitt for clarification on my position.
Again, I believe it comes down to scale and scope for me on the issue. Without a centralized government and tax revenue I don’t see how many “public goods” would be paid for. In fact, I think you would see an unfair competitive advantage in certain areas if business controlled, say the roads or oil.
[quote]
It isn’t. You just aren’t thinking it through. You stop at “the collective” and fail to drill down to the building blocks of “the collective” the individual. [/quote]
I have thought it through. Like I said, owe is not the right word and I re-worded my statement in a couple of posts. I have repeated said the “individual” is “society”, which is again why I have a hard time with the nefarious “man/leader” statements I have been addressing.
[quote]
While this has nothing to do with what I’m talking about, I’ll address it in the terms that I’m speaking.
No, the oil spill doesn’t help society, other than those that are paid to clean it up, but net, the spill hurts the world more than it helps.
Life isn’t fair. Not every transaction or happening is going to be a winner. [/quote]
I agree, however, having some government helps make some things “more fair”. Case and point, Ma & Pa’s who had their fish business destroyed by BP’s oil spill could collect assistance until able to get back on their feet. I see that as a good thing. Those that abuse the system, on the contrary, are a menace.
[quote]
Long-term, everyone does benefit. Short-term, people that don’t adapt to the change, are harmed significantly. However, in ordered for your invention to replace the car, it has to add more value to society for them to accept and purchase it. As in, the market won’t allow the car to be replaced unless the replacement is better than the car. Therefore people are getting more “bang for their buck” from the replacement. So therefore, on a long enough time line, it is a benefit. [/quote]
That is not necessarily true in my opinion. Yes people may get more bang for their buck, but but 100s/1,000s of jobs are eliminate in the process that can’t easily be replaced. What happens to these folks? What if the replacement vehicle requires 1/10 the number of jobs the automobile industry does and doesn’t use oil? We are talking about a lot of folks out of work in an economy that isn’t exactly adding jobs left and right. Honest working individuals too. Without certain protection society offers through government many of these people would be screwed plain and simple.
Perhaps the dollars not used on oil are put back in the economy, perhaps not. Maybe pay goes down because the job market for the new industry is extremely competitive with 1,000s of car/oil workers now jobless.
Yes I know life isn’t fair, this is true.
[quote]I agree. However, that has nothing to do with whether or not you “owe” society.
You don’t owe the collective anything, unless you are a leech. If you feel obligated to the collective that is another story. I, myself, feel obligated on some levels to do some things. I don’t owe them though…[/quote]
Everyone is obligated to the collective in someway in my opinion. You do not “owe” the collective.
Okay, but you did jump into an interaction between Nick, H Factor, and I. My comment, which you then commented on, was in line with that conversation.
And again, I think you probably just missed where I clarified, twice, my thoughts on “owe”. I do not think anyone owes anyone else anything.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
In fact, I think you would see an unfair competitive advantage in certain areas if business controlled, say the roads or oil.
[/quote]
It’s called a monopoly
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
In fact, I think you would see an unfair competitive advantage in certain areas if business controlled, say the roads or oil.
[/quote]
It’s called a monopoly
[/quote]
I think in a 100% free market you would eventually end up with a monopoly or monopolies, but a monopoly doesn’t need to exist for an unfair advantage to exist. Sometimes circumstance is enough. Price gauging would almost certainly be an issue depending on circumstance.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Again, I believe it comes down to scale and scope for me on the issue. Without a centralized government and tax revenue I don’t see how many “public goods” would be paid for. In fact, I think you would see an unfair competitive advantage in certain areas if business controlled, say the roads or oil. [/quote]
Government simply facilitates the services you are talking about. These things would still be in existence without a massive, strong government, and even a small well checked government would still likely facilitate these things.
The vast majority of people what these things and they want them there with as little hassle as possible. Most people are okay, to an extent with paying for it too. I don’t mind paying tax on my gas, because the people that collect my payment keep the snow off the roads I also pay for. Not only can I get around, but I help put food on someone’s table that works for the tax collector. This is much easier than me paying 3, 6 or even 200 different people/companies to do the same things for me.
The inefficiencies of government handling these activities are well outpaced by the convenience provided by its facilitation. I would be willing to bet somewhere around 80% of people would still be okay with the government facilitating such things as road plowing, parks, etc. If given the option.
[quote]
I have repeated said the “individual” is “society”, [/quote]
Well then I’m not sure where your hang-up is with the concepts here then.
You don’t speak in terms that reinforce this.
[quote]
I agree, however, having some government helps make some things “more fair”. Case and point, Ma & Pa’s who had their fish business destroyed by BP’s oil spill could collect assistance until able to get back on their feet. I see that as a good thing. Those that abuse the system, on the contrary, are a menace. [/quote]
They should have had insurance if they were smart. People know there is drilling going on in the Golf.
Government doesn’t make anything “more fair”. Government facilitates. Once it starts making things “fair” it stops being government and starts being rulers & subjects.
[quote]
That is not necessarily true in my opinion. Yes people may get more bang for their buck, but but 100s/1,000s of jobs are eliminate in the process that can’t easily be replaced. What happens to these folks? What if the replacement vehicle requires 1/10 the number of jobs the automobile industry does and doesn’t use oil? We are talking about a lot of folks out of work in an economy that isn’t exactly adding jobs left and right. Honest working individuals too. Without certain protection society offers through government many of these people would be screwed plain and simple.
Perhaps the dollars not used on oil are put back in the economy, perhaps not. Maybe pay goes down because the job market for the new industry is extremely competitive with 1,000s of car/oil workers now jobless. [/quote]
If your invention isn’t better than the car in terms of value or return on investment, it won’t replace the car. Economics 101. Therefore it HAS to be a benefit overall, it just may take time, and need to be viewed on a large scale.
What you are saying is like me saying “I can shit in a bag, and sell it as a healthy lunch. This will put people who make PB&J’s out of business.” This is a ludicrous statement. No one will buy the shit sandwich unless it is actually a better sandwich than the PB&J.
[quote]
Everyone is obligated to the collective in someway in my opinion. You do not “owe” the collective. [/quote]
That obligation is fulfilled by legal and moral participation.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
In fact, I think you would see an unfair competitive advantage in certain areas if business controlled, say the roads or oil.
[/quote]
It’s called a monopoly
[/quote]
I think in a 100% free market you would eventually end up with a monopoly or monopolies, but a monopoly doesn’t need to exist for an unfair advantage to exist. Sometimes circumstance is enough. Price gauging would almost certainly be an issue depending on circumstance. [/quote]
I personally could not understand how you could have a free market with out rules that kept it fair and free
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Again, I believe it comes down to scale and scope for me on the issue. Without a centralized government and tax revenue I don’t see how many “public goods” would be paid for. In fact, I think you would see an unfair competitive advantage in certain areas if business controlled, say the roads or oil. [/quote]
Government simply facilitates the services you are talking about. These things would still be in existence without a massive, strong government, and even a small well checked government would still likely facilitate these things.
The vast majority of people what these things and they want them there with as little hassle as possible. Most people are okay, to an extent with paying for it too. I don’t mind paying tax on my gas, because the people that collect my payment keep the snow off the roads I also pay for. Not only can I get around, but I help put food on someone’s table that works for the tax collector. This is much easier than me paying 3, 6 or even 200 different people/companies to do the same things for me.
The inefficiencies of government handling these activities are well outpaced by the convenience provided by its facilitation. I would be willing to bet somewhere around 80% of people would still be okay with the government facilitating such things as road plowing, parks, etc. If given the option.
[quote]
I have repeated said the “individual” is “society”, [/quote]
Well then I’m not sure where your hang-up is with the concepts here then.
You don’t speak in terms that reinforce this.
[quote]
I agree, however, having some government helps make some things “more fair”. Case and point, Ma & Pa’s who had their fish business destroyed by BP’s oil spill could collect assistance until able to get back on their feet. I see that as a good thing. Those that abuse the system, on the contrary, are a menace. [/quote]
They should have had insurance if they were smart. People know there is drilling going on in the Golf.
Government doesn’t make anything “more fair”. Government facilitates. Once it starts making things “fair” it stops being government and starts being rulers & subjects.
[quote]
That is not necessarily true in my opinion. Yes people may get more bang for their buck, but but 100s/1,000s of jobs are eliminate in the process that can’t easily be replaced. What happens to these folks? What if the replacement vehicle requires 1/10 the number of jobs the automobile industry does and doesn’t use oil? We are talking about a lot of folks out of work in an economy that isn’t exactly adding jobs left and right. Honest working individuals too. Without certain protection society offers through government many of these people would be screwed plain and simple.
Perhaps the dollars not used on oil are put back in the economy, perhaps not. Maybe pay goes down because the job market for the new industry is extremely competitive with 1,000s of car/oil workers now jobless. [/quote]
If your invention isn’t better than the car in terms of value or return on investment, it won’t replace the car. Economics 101. Therefore it HAS to be a benefit overall, it just may take time, and need to be viewed on a large scale.
What you are saying is like me saying “I can shit in a bag, and sell it as a healthy lunch. This will put people who make PB&J’s out of business.” This is a ludicrous statement. No one will buy the shit sandwich unless it is actually a better sandwich than the PB&J.
Beans, if you and I had started this conversation we would be on the same page. Everything I wrote was based off Nicks idea of a government free society.
I will try and address all of your points:
1.) In my opinion all of the public goods/services would not be addressed without a central government. Yes, the government is a facilitator. That is all I’ve been saying. I don’t believe businesses would facilitate road paving for example and if they did it would be almost certainly resemble government. That was pretty much my point. I am all for a small well checked government doing these things. I get the impression you think I’m being ra ra big government. I am not.
2.) Of course the vast majority want these things. In my opinion the best way to get these things, like roads, is through a centralized government via tax revenue. I am also, obviously, okay with paying for them. However, folks are here think it is theft analogous to rape, my posts were originally directed at them.
3.) I agree the Ma & Pa should of had insurance. What if they couldn’t afford it? They;re just up shit creek because BP screwed up?
4.) Anti-trust laws, anti-piracy laws, predator lender laws, etc… don’t make things fair? They are just rulers ruling their subjects?
Of course the government is responsible for a lot of garbage laws, many of which fit your description, but there are laws that “make things more fair” via protection the individual could never have without society backing them.
5.) What I’m say, as far as the car invention scenario goes, is that a % of society will benefit while another % will not. There doesn’t necessarily have to be a net benefit. This new invention could be beneficial to the accountants, financial advisory, analysts, etc… of the world because it’s cheaper and fuel efficient while sending thousands to the unemployment line. A better product made more efficiently benefits the majority while putting a large percentage of the minority out of work, possibly for good. It could take 50 years before a new equilibrium is achieved and by then something better might replace it.
6.) “That obligation is fulfilled by legal and moral participation.”
You have to have some authority for legal participation to work and we both know morals can vary greatly between people especially based on topic.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
In fact, I think you would see an unfair competitive advantage in certain areas if business controlled, say the roads or oil.
[/quote]
It’s called a monopoly
[/quote]
I think in a 100% free market you would eventually end up with a monopoly or monopolies, but a monopoly doesn’t need to exist for an unfair advantage to exist. Sometimes circumstance is enough. Price gauging would almost certainly be an issue depending on circumstance. [/quote]
I personally could not understand how you could have a free market with out rules that kept it fair and free
[/quote]
It wouldn’t be free if it had rules/authority over it.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
In fact, I think you would see an unfair competitive advantage in certain areas if business controlled, say the roads or oil.
[/quote]
It’s called a monopoly
[/quote]
I think in a 100% free market you would eventually end up with a monopoly or monopolies, but a monopoly doesn’t need to exist for an unfair advantage to exist. Sometimes circumstance is enough. Price gauging would almost certainly be an issue depending on circumstance. [/quote]
I personally could not understand how you could have a free market with out rules that kept it fair and free
[/quote]
It wouldn’t be free if it had rules/authority over it. [/quote]
Free would be its own rule. Absence of rules is still a rule.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
In fact, I think you would see an unfair competitive advantage in certain areas if business controlled, say the roads or oil.
[/quote]
It’s called a monopoly
[/quote]
I think in a 100% free market you would eventually end up with a monopoly or monopolies, but a monopoly doesn’t need to exist for an unfair advantage to exist. Sometimes circumstance is enough. Price gauging would almost certainly be an issue depending on circumstance. [/quote]
I personally could not understand how you could have a free market with out rules that kept it fair and free
[/quote]
It wouldn’t be free if it had rules/authority over it. [/quote]
Free would be its own rule. Absence of rules is still a rule. [/quote]
Oh Jesus…fine.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Everything I wrote was based off Nicks idea of a government free society. [/quote]
I agree with a lot of what Nick says, but this idea of his is where I think he comes off the tracks.
I will try and address all of your points:
No, I think you are being too focused on the collective and not aware enough of the individual’s role in that collective.
Taxes that are paid though one’s own volition (tax on gas for example) are not theft. Income taxes are pretty much theft though.
The have recourse in the courts, yes. But it isn’t BECAUSE of government they have recourse, it is because out government is set up to PROTECT their recourse. Very important and distinct difference. Government doesn’t grant them recourse, it protects their claim to it.
No, those do not “make things fair”. Those criminalize behavior society has deemed inappropriate. If the perception is that things are “more fair” after they are passed, then so be it, however, no one can create fair, life isn’t fair, you can’t centrally plan fair, no one nor any government will ever be able to define fair that doesn’t harm someone, somewhere.
So, even if I agreed with this, then you are describing a ruler ruling its servants then. Only certain activities are allowed…
In a free market, yes there does. This is in your 101 book.
This has been happening since the dawn of civilization. New technology replaces old. Mankind has thrived and prospered.
[quote]6.) “That obligation is fulfilled by legal and moral participation.”
You have to have some authority for legal participation to work and we both know morals can vary greatly between people especially based on topic. [/quote]
I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. Either that or I don’t understand your response.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
No, I think you are being too focused on the collective and not aware enough of the individual’s role in that collective.
[/quote]
I don’t know why you think this.
I don’t see how. Maybe you can explain why better than others have? Public goods (like roads) are paid for by people that use said roads to get to work. The roads allow them to reach their place of work, which allows them to earn a pay check, which they then help pay for. I don’t see how that’s theft. It looks more to me like paying of a good you take advantage of to make your living.
If you eliminate the income tax about 100 other taxes would pop up. If that makes every feel better than so be it, but we will still pay for the roads we utilize on a daily basis.
Right, we the people, create a government that, among other things, allows for recourse in court. Without the structure of government “we” set up there would be no recourse. How could you enforce a contract and/or how could arbitration work if there wasn’t an authority overseeing them?
I feel like we are arguing semantics. It makes activities criminal, which makes things fair for law abiding citizens. These criminalized behaviors level the playing field.
I’m not trying to plan fair, I’m not trying to get everyone a trophy. I want a level playing field.
Or you look at it as, our society (not some imaginary ruler) deems certain activities appropriate vs. inappropriate (like what we are discussing above). Ultimately all of these rulers are create by “us” through our elected representation. Maybe they are “rulers”, but that’s not their fault, it’s ours.
You’re telling me there is not 1 instance where 1 product doesn’t replace another with no net benefit? It is never a zero sum game in free market economics?
In the aggregate yes. Not everyone prospers though. Eggs scrambled to make an omelet and all that.
There is no way, that I’m aware of, for laws/legal recourse to exist without an authority to enforce the law. How can a contract between you and I be binding without authority? If I hire you to do my taxes, you file them, and I say “we’ll F you sucker I’m not paying your fee,” you sue me, you win, but I refuse to pay the fee, how are you going to get your money?
Same thing can be said about moral obligations. I, like you, feel I am morally obligated to pay my debts. Not every feels this way, which is the main draw back from giving people the option to “give back based on moral obligation”. You and I would pay for 99% of people to drive to work I’m afraid. Who would pay for the military? Hell, how would you even have a military without a government?
Even if we started from scratch, all individuals with out a government, how long do you think it would take before we centralize power again? A year, 10 years, a week?
That’s all I’ve been saying, government is necessary for certain (few) things. It’s also natural despite what some here would say.
Beans, I think this sums my stance up fairly well:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Like I said, I think if your honest you have to acknowledged society makes your success possible (at least more possible), but I don’t agree that you owe society for your success.
As an analogy, I don’t owe my parents for my success, but I acknowledge their role in said success. Food, clothing, shelter, advice, and support offered by them for 18+ years helped facilitate that success, without question. [/quote]