[quote]pittbulll wrote:
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]
Is a monopoly necessarily a bad thing? Has a monopoly ever been created by one private business’ superiority? If it was, why would a monopoly be bad? If that business raised its prices too much(above the value of the service/good it provides), then other businesses could open up and take all of that business’ business. If a private business refuses to sell its goods at market value, it will go out of business. If the government refuses to sell its goods at market value, everybody is screwed-government doesn’t allow competition, and if it does, it has the ability to use its competitors’ money to drive them out of business.
A monopoly created by government is an entirely different animal. If competitors can be jailed and fined, then the government-created monopoly can do whatever it likes with its prices.
Monopoly on initiation of force is what fans of the free market want to eliminate. That is the monopoly that allows others to exist.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
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]
Is a monopoly necessarily a bad thing? Has a monopoly ever been created by one private business’ superiority? If it was, why would a monopoly be bad? If that business raised its prices too much(above the value of the service/good it provides), then other businesses could open up and take all of that business’ business. If a private business refuses to sell its goods at market value, it will go out of business. If the government refuses to sell its goods at market value, everybody is screwed-government doesn’t allow competition, and if it does, it has the ability to use its competitors’ money to drive them out of business.
A monopoly created by government is an entirely different animal. If competitors can be jailed and fined, then the government-created monopoly can do whatever it likes with its prices.[/quote]
A monopoly can absolutely be a bad thing especially if there is no government to keep it in check. A monopoly without government can screw the consumer the same exact way you just said government screws consumers. A monopoly in a government free world could literally destroy any competition by force. Who would stop them? Us? We haven’t stopped our government from doing it so why would we stop a monopoly?
At least in our current system politician have to be re-elected (even if it’s a crock of crap). BP & their monopoly on oil would control with absolute authority for as long as they want to. Sans government, they can just hire armed thugs to ensure their authority too.
Say hello to $20/gal, it’s okay though I’m sure BP will have openings for their paramilitary.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t know why you think this. [/quote]
Because you say things like:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Like I said, I think if your honest you have to acknowledged society makes your success possible [/quote]
Because the simple fact of the matter is that is either completely false or ass backwards at best. You are nothing to society, neither am I. We are replaceable cogs in the machine that will be lost eventually, and replaced. Some may cry, shit a ton may cry, but we are nothing, no one is so truly significant that society as a whole will do any more than a momentary hiccup if they passed.
Therefore it isn’t society that makes your success possible, it is YOU that makes your success possible within the society in which you operate. You have to adapt to the world around you, you have to learn to function in society.
You understand the “big picture” of what I’m saying when it comes to abortion, but when we start talking about this, I lose you…
[quote]
I don’t see how. Maybe you can explain why better than others have?[/quote]
Because you have no choice in the matter. Progressive income taxes take more of your earnings the better you do. You cannot choose to not be part of that system and still earn a wage. You cannot “pursue happiness” without functioning in society. Functioning in society means you pay tax on your wages.
Not everything your taxes pay for are bad, and some things I’m okay with my money paying for, I’m not okay with the fact that the threat of violence is used to extract this money from me.
The lack of choice means it is taken from you, so…
Because you are looking at it through a narrow lens. What about the fact your tax dollars helped pay to Drone Strike an innocent child last week?
Stop focusing on the roads. They are one piece of the pie, largely funded locally through RE taxes & consumption taxes on gas. Shit.
False. You, I and everyone always has recourse. The government doesn’t “allow” it, the government protects your access to it. The terms are not interchangeable.
Yes there would, people would just not have the ability to use it. It is there no matter what.
[quote]
I’m not trying to plan fair, I’m not trying to get everyone a trophy. I want a level playing field. [/quote]
You really don’t see the contradiction here?
The playing field will never be level. I will always be a shitty baseball player, and Derek Jeter will always hire someone to do his taxes.
If the playing field were level I would make as much to file his taxes as he does playing shortstop, or better yet, I’d be playing short.
[quote]
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. [/quote]
Agreed.
[quote]
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?[/quote]
Do people still ride horses to work?
Come on man. Why don’t we use cassette tapes anymore?
The market isn’t going to pay for option 2 as a replacement for option 1 unless it has to, due to scarcity or additional value.
No, and that isn’t ever going to change. No matter how many people vote for Liz Warren.
Look my statement was: any obligation you have to society, if you have one, is fulfilled by your participation in society, if you do it in a lawful and moral manor.
So as long as you don’t rip people off, and you don’t mame, kills and steal, your activity within society can only benefit it. Because you can’t operate in a free society successfully without cooperation.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I would rather have welfare recipients work a certain amount of hours a week doing community projects.
To get their check they have to give their time back.[/quote]
I like this. Although I’m sure some welfare recievers cannot work (physically and mentally disabled). Still the able bodied people who receive could give something back. Then again setting that up is also going to cost money :)[/quote]
But at least something good will come of it…and it will discourage those that just want a free ride.
If they learn a skill or trade in the process, so much the better.[/quote]
I like that. I mean, we’re already paying asinine amounts for new healthcare enrollees right? Didn’t I hear in Oregon we ended up paying something like a quarter million dollars for each Obamacare enrollee when the numbers were crunched in relation to the budget they received?
Better if we’re going to waste money then there at least be a small return on investment in the way of community service or trade-learning. That may eventually pay itself forward enough to break even in the big schemes if people can get work. Or decrease benefits but guarantee free schooling in trades IF they have a C average–that way you mitigate the cost of sending them to school, simultaneously lessen the incentive to stay on welfare indefinitely, and also get them educated and incentivized to work at a job that pays them more when they finish trade school.
Regarding drug testing. I think it has benefits and I think the effectiveness also depends on the target state. For instance in Kansas you might not have enough people on the dole to make the cost anywhere near effective for setting up an entire drug testing program statewide, but in New York or California the great population numbers and large welfare numbers might make it more effective.
Second, and something to think about, is it might be acceptable to deal with the short term financial loss of comprehensive drug testing if you put the “fear of God” into the people you are testing. In other words: go with it, test everyone, kick everyone off that doesn’t pass 3 tests in a row with 1 warning after the first fail, and then gradually ramp it down to “random” testing of a random sample of people after a couple years. I’m just thinking out loud really, but that might enable us to get the worst out, drastically decrease the rate of abuse, and also eventually reduce the costs of spending when you are not testing as many people in the future.
Sort of a “spend money to make money” thing. I dunno.[/quote]
Since when do you have to pay to learn a trade? ALL of the major UNION trades actually pay their apprentices to go to school. If anyone want’s to learn a trade, all they have to do is fill out an application at your local union hall. For electrical workers, they will give you a math test. If you fail the test, they will give you FREE remedial math classes UNTIL YOU PASS.
Then they pay FOR your school and pay the student an hourly wage TO GO TO school…
The rub is this: if you are in the program and fail three tests in one year, you are kicked out of the program. Other unions are very similar.
The only reason people do not take advantage of this is because they DON’T WANT TO WORK.[/quote]
Like ZJStrope, I had no idea they would do this at all, and consider myself fairly well educated, rounded, and “aware”.
Perhaps that is also one reason welfare ppl don’t do it…they aren’t aware of it.
A monopoly can absolutely be a bad thing especially if there is no government to keep it in check. A monopoly without government can screw the consumer the same exact way you just said government screws consumers. A monopoly in a government free world could literally destroy any competition by force. Who would stop them? Us? We haven’t stopped our government from doing it so why would we stop a monopoly?
[/quote]
So if McDonald’s establishes a monopoly on burger production, it would suddenly be able to increase the price of a cheeseburger to $10? How would McDonald’s keep me from producing and selling burgers for far less? Government enables monopolies to exist; government schools spread the myth of dangerous free-market monopolies.
“A monopoly without government can screw the consumer the same exact way you just said government screws consumers. A monopoly in a government free world could literally destroy any competition by force. Who would stop them? Us? We haven’t stopped our government from doing it so why would we stop a monopoly?”
-This is a great point. Why the hell don’t we stop the government? Also, why is it more acceptable that this abuse comes from a group calling itself government?
Why would a monopoly be “especially” bad if there were no government? A monopoly would be especially bad, especially if there was no monopoly?
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]
with no rules there is nothing keeping me from sticking agun in your face and stealing everything you own , it’s called anarchy , it is not free and it is not fair
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
with no rules there is nothing keeping me from sticking agun in your face and stealing everything you own , it’s called anarchy , it is not free and it is not fair
[/quote]
What’s stopping you from doing that now? If I did that to Bill Gates, I’m almost certain that I could avoid any future government punishment.
With no rules, what is to stop me from drawing my own gun and putting many holes in you after you stick a gun in my face in an attempt to take my property. It’s going to be pretty hard to get all of my property if you kill me first. You need me alive. I have no use for the man trying to rob me. If you just want to kill somebody, there’s nothing to stop you from doing it now. Wait for the mailman to walk up to your mailbox, then kill him. Wait for your neighbor to get home from work, kill him. Simple.
The idea that giving up many rights to a Godstate makes us safer is ridiculous.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t know why you think this. [/quote]
Because you say things like:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Like I said, I think if your honest you have to acknowledged society makes your success possible [/quote]
Because the simple fact of the matter is that is either completely false or ass backwards at best. You are nothing to society, neither am I. We are replaceable cogs in the machine that will be lost eventually, and replaced. Some may cry, shit a ton may cry, but we are nothing, no one is so truly significant that society as a whole will do any more than a momentary hiccup if they passed.
Therefore it isn’t society that makes your success possible, it is YOU that makes your success possible within the society in which you operate. You have to adapt to the world around you, you have to learn to function in society.
You understand the “big picture” of what I’m saying when it comes to abortion, but when we start talking about this, I lose you…
[quote]
I don’t see how. Maybe you can explain why better than others have?[/quote]
Because you have no choice in the matter. Progressive income taxes take more of your earnings the better you do. You cannot choose to not be part of that system and still earn a wage. You cannot “pursue happiness” without functioning in society. Functioning in society means you pay tax on your wages.
Not everything your taxes pay for are bad, and some things I’m okay with my money paying for, I’m not okay with the fact that the threat of violence is used to extract this money from me.
The lack of choice means it is taken from you, so…
Because you are looking at it through a narrow lens. What about the fact your tax dollars helped pay to Drone Strike an innocent child last week?
Stop focusing on the roads. They are one piece of the pie, largely funded locally through RE taxes & consumption taxes on gas. Shit.
False. You, I and everyone always has recourse. The government doesn’t “allow” it, the government protects your access to it. The terms are not interchangeable.
Yes there would, people would just not have the ability to use it. It is there no matter what.
[quote]
I’m not trying to plan fair, I’m not trying to get everyone a trophy. I want a level playing field. [/quote]
You really don’t see the contradiction here?
The playing field will never be level. I will always be a shitty baseball player, and Derek Jeter will always hire someone to do his taxes.
If the playing field were level I would make as much to file his taxes as he does playing shortstop, or better yet, I’d be playing short.
[quote]
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. [/quote]
Agreed.
[quote]
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?[/quote]
Do people still ride horses to work?
Come on man. Why don’t we use cassette tapes anymore?
The market isn’t going to pay for option 2 as a replacement for option 1 unless it has to, due to scarcity or additional value.
No, and that isn’t ever going to change. No matter how many people vote for Liz Warren.
Look my statement was: any obligation you have to society, if you have one, is fulfilled by your participation in society, if you do it in a lawful and moral manor.
So as long as you don’t rip people off, and you don’t mame, kills and steal, your activity within society can only benefit it. Because you can’t operate in a free society successfully without cooperation. [/quote]
1.) You see this (which you only quoted part of):
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Like I said, I think if your honest you have to acknowledged society makes your success possible [/quote]
As me saying you are only successful because of government. That is not at all my stance. I am saying and have said our society (in the form of government) gives opportunity for success where it otherwise would not be.
I’ll use my college education as an example, obviously this only applies to some people. I went to a MD state school. I paid for the tuition through the Montgomery GI bill (a contract society used to incentive military service via government). My first job out of school was private sector, but most of the funding was via DHHS.
Did I earn my degree? Yes. Do I owe government or society for my degree? No. Do I acknowledge without the military and a state school I would have best case taken out huge loans (most likely tax payer funded) to attend a private college (likely way more competitive with out state schools) or not gotten a degree at all.
This is all I have been saying, if you are intellectually honest you should be able to acknowledge the hand society has played in your success. I’m not down playing hard work. I’m not saying, “you didn’t build that”. For a lot of people society facilitates their success.
The same can be said for a hell of a lot of government goods/services. To get to the college I went to I used 3 major MD highways. Again, I’d love a real model to show anything other than government via tax dollars pays for these roads.
We are clearly looking at this issue from two different perspectives. I from the individual you from the aggregate. Yes I see your point. We are cogs in the wheel, but society wouldn’t exit without those individual cogs. Are some more easily replaceable than others? Yes. Are all cogs replaceable? Yes. Can a car ride without a wheel? Yes, but not very well or far.
Please, drop the “owe” issue. I’m not even sure at this point I even said that, but regardless I’ve clarified like 12 times now. For the record you do not owe society anything. That was never the intent of my message nor the point. Simply that WE benefit in a millions ways from living in a society, in general and in our specific society, that we would not have otherwise.
I understand the big picture in both situations. I honestly think either a) you are misunderstanding or b) I just suck at explaining my self.
2.) As far as income tax goes, offer a viable alternative to income tax to pay for the goods/services you think society should provide. I am happy to listen. Again, I do not see it as theft because we use the very things the income tax pays for by virtue of living here. Safe through the bloated military, check. Roads to get to and from work, check. Labor laws that protect against 9 year old’s working in mine, check. So on and so forth. Drone strikes on innocent civilians is abhorrent. Do we dismantle the military because of it?
The government is bloated beyond measure. That is the issue to me. Do we need to bomb villages in Afghanistan? No we don’t. Do we need tax dollars to pay for a standing military? Yes, in my opinion we do.
3.) Fine, I’ll stop focusing on the roads. How about the military than?
4.) Okay, theoretically we would have recourse. I like reality better Beans and in reality if no government exists your only option, in this example, is to come to my house and try and take your fee by force. In which case I would justifiably defend my belongings with force. Is this what we want? Or perhaps your company will send 10 armed men to take the fee by force. Is that what we want?
5.) Being a shitty baseball player has nothing to do with you not being a pro baseball player. I am not nor have I said you should automatically get to be what ever you want. How many pro baseball players (or any sport) got an opportunity to play a sport through a government sponsored program? Wasn’t Dennis Rodman homeless? It seem like society, through tax sponsored programs, gave Rodman an opportunity he otherwise would not have had and he became one of the best defensive players the Bulls ever had.
6.) So scarcity is another possibility. I thought society only ever replaces 1 product/service with one that provides greater value? Hoe about when your firm hires one of the partners nephews to do tax returns and he’s a fucking idiot, losing you business and keeping someone else (better qualified) from gain full employment. Isn’t that a loss for society?
I am being a pain, yes you are right in that typically (and the majority of the time) a better product replaces an obsolete one. I still think the scenario I created fits. You could replace the car and not realize a net benefit before that transportation replacement is then replaced.
7.) The level playing field is about making opportunityavailable to all. Not making everything even Steven. I’m not saying you should make the same money as a doctor or a baseball player. Let the market decide that with as little government interference as possible, but why should I get a better opportunity to be an accountant (a middle class white kid) than the daughter of a coked out child abuser in Baltimore City by virtue of where and to whom I was born. I am for a level playing field as far as opportunity goes. Should we hold the girls hand for 50 years of her life because her dad beats her? No. Should she get a chance to go to a school that doesn’t have metal detectors and community college rejects as teacher? Ya, in my opinion, in the year 2014 in the wealthiest country in the world we can probably make that happen.
8.) As far as your last statement goes about cooperation et al. You must have way more faith in the human race than me I guess.
A monopoly can absolutely be a bad thing especially if there is no government to keep it in check. A monopoly without government can screw the consumer the same exact way you just said government screws consumers. A monopoly in a government free world could literally destroy any competition by force. Who would stop them? Us? We haven’t stopped our government from doing it so why would we stop a monopoly?
[/quote]
So if McDonald’s establishes a monopoly on burger production, it would suddenly be able to increase the price of a cheeseburger to $10? How would McDonald’s keep me from producing and selling burgers for far less? Government enables monopolies to exist; government schools spread the myth of dangerous free-market monopolies.
“A monopoly without government can screw the consumer the same exact way you just said government screws consumers. A monopoly in a government free world could literally destroy any competition by force. Who would stop them? Us? We haven’t stopped our government from doing it so why would we stop a monopoly?”
-This is a great point. Why the hell don’t we stop the government? Also, why is it more acceptable that this abuse comes from a group calling itself government?
Why would a monopoly be “especially” bad if there were no government? A monopoly would be especially bad, especially if there was no monopoly?[/quote]
Its more acceptable because we vote for it, therefore, it’s by choice.
I have gone on record a number of times saying the federal government has to much power. So, ya, we should stop it.
McDonald’s, sans government, would come to your little shop and kill you to stop you from selling your cheeseburger for less than them. It’s really that simple. At least that’s a real possibility. Whose going to stop them?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Its more acceptable because we vote for it, therefore, it’s by choice.
[/quote]
Well, I can’t say that I agree with your current choices, but I guess I also chose them, so good luck to us in the future.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
McDonald’s, sans government, would come to your little shop and kill you to stop you from selling your cheeseburger for less than them. It’s really that simple. At least that’s a real possibility. Whose going to stop them? [/quote]
It is a possibility. It’s also a possibility now. It’s also possible that our government will do this. It’s also possible that another government will defeat ours and do this. Lots of things are possible. Is it more likely that those who specialize in cooperative interaction will do this, or that an entity who is merely force will do this?
Your argument is getting closer and closer to, “I can do all things through Government who strengthens me.” I really don’t think that you believe that.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Its more acceptable because we vote for it, therefore, it’s by choice.
[/quote]
Well, I can’t say that I agree with your current choices, but I guess I also chose them, so good luck to us in the future.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
McDonald’s, sans government, would come to your little shop and kill you to stop you from selling your cheeseburger for less than them. It’s really that simple. At least that’s a real possibility. Whose going to stop them? [/quote]
It is a possibility. It’s also a possibility now. It’s also possible that our government will do this. It’s also possible that another government will defeat ours and do this. Lots of things are possible. Is it more likely that those who specialize in cooperative interaction will do this, or that an entity who is merely force will do this?
Your argument is getting closer and closer to, “I can do all things through Government who strengthens me.” I really don’t think that you believe that.[/quote]
Yes, the government could do this, but if “the government” acted against all people, I seriously doubt the majority of people would stand for it. If McDonald’s comes to your little shop and kills you, whose going to care?
Government doesn’t specialize in cooperation? Business specializes in competition not cooperation. Is Bernie Maddoff better than Barrack Obama?
I believe collectively we are better than we are apart. You can take that however you’d like. You’re wrong though.
You say “government” with disdain, I say “society” with hope. Hope for a better tomorrow for future generations.
I used to attempt to argue/think/reason on a board that talked a lot about anarcho-capitialism. Eventually I grew tired of it because it is one of those arguments that one truly can’t win. Imagining our current society as moving to that and trying to pretend we have any sort of guess as to how things would be is fruitless for both sides. Whether one is arguing for government or against it, they are meaningless hypotheticals. We can’t truly know what may happen until it is tried. The amount of variables at play is mind boggling.
Fun to talk about, but nothing anyone can really say to be proven right or wrong. We simply don’t know.
[quote]H factor wrote:
I used to attempt to argue/think/reason on a board that talked a lot about anarcho-capitialism. Eventually I grew tired of it because it is one of those arguments that one truly can’t win. Imagining our current society as moving to that and trying to pretend we have any sort of guess as to how things would be is fruitless for both sides. Whether one is arguing for government or against it, they are meaningless hypotheticals. We can’t truly know what may happen until it is tried. The amount of variables at play is mind boggling.
Fun to talk about, but nothing anyone can really say to be proven right or wrong. We simply don’t know. [/quote]
Great point. We have no idea how a free society would operate-the U.S., prior to the adoption of the Constitution, is probably about as close as we have had-and even the intent of the Constitution has likely been perverted. Human beings are not perfect. We do have a good idea of how a government operates, however, and I would be very scared if I believed I was best off being controlled by an entity calling itself that.
How can those who do not fund the government have any say in it? That’s a serious conflict of interest, correct? When the government gave itself the power to buy votes, it should have been eliminated/changed. When only those who own a share of government are allowed to make a decision, that’s pretty good. How long would Wal-Mart stay in business if it let Target’s shareholders decide how it is run?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Being controlled would suck, glad I live in America and not North Korea. [/quote]
I’ll post a few links for you to look through and decide if we are controlled. You may argue that these laws are not enforced. Great. I will then make the argument that statists tend to make when arguing against freedom after having the fact that the government can do what it wants pointed out to them…but that’s not the way it’s SUPPOSED to work. These laws are SUPPOSED TO and CAN be enforced.
Interstate sale of raw milk is illegal. It’s illegal to turn loose together two chickens(in almost every state) or dogs who will fight-in fact, it’s a felony in most states. Government approval is almost always needed to build something on “privately-owned” property.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Being controlled would suck, glad I live in America and not North Korea. [/quote]
I’ll post a few links for you to look through and decide if we are controlled. You may argue that these laws are not enforced. Great. I will then make the argument that statists tend to make when arguing against freedom after having the fact that the government can do what it wants pointed out to them…but that’s not the way it’s SUPPOSED to work. These laws are SUPPOSED TO and CAN be enforced.
Interstate sale of raw milk is illegal. It’s illegal to turn loose together two chickens(in almost every state) or dogs who will fight-in fact, it’s a felony in most states. Government approval is almost always needed to build something on “privately-owned” property.
[/quote]
You’re right, thanks for opening my eyes. A prominent member of the North Korean government is put to death and fed to starved dogs for speaking out against their dictator, but we aren’t free because a couple of extremely dumb laws, like eating an orange in a bath tubs, haven’t been repealed yet.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You’re right, thanks for opening my eyes. A prominent member of the North Korean government is put to death and fed to starved dogs for speaking out against their dictator, but we aren’t free because a couple of extremely dumb laws, like eating an orange in a bath tubs, haven’t been repealed yet.
We are so oppressed. [/quote]
Not that I’d be opposed to seeing many members of our government treated the same, but oppression is an unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power. It’s not relative(i.e. if slave a is whipped once for trying to escape, while slave b is whipped 10 times, slave a is not free by virtue of having a less cruel master). A just tax is called a payment. A voluntary transaction can’t be justly punished.
I’m not arguing anybody has it any better than we do. I don’t know if any non-British citizens had it any better than the American colonists. Right is right, and wrong is wrong, though. Our government is wrong, and the citizens of this country can make things right(or at least much closer).
I doubt anarchy is actually possible, but I think we are certainly best served by pushing for it. I think a state will always emerge, due to humans being humans, but when a man is taxed for contributing, a man can’t use his property the way he pleases, and everything is seen as the state’s business, the state has overstepped its bounds.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You’re right, thanks for opening my eyes. A prominent member of the North Korean government is put to death and fed to starved dogs for speaking out against their dictator, but we aren’t free because a couple of extremely dumb laws, like eating an orange in a bath tubs, haven’t been repealed yet.
We are so oppressed. [/quote]
Not that I’d be opposed to seeing many members of our government treated the same, but oppression is an unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power. It’s not relative(i.e. if slave a is whipped once for trying to escape, while slave b is whipped 10 times, slave a is not free by virtue of having a less cruel master). A just tax is called a payment. A voluntary transaction can’t be justly punished.
I’m not arguing anybody has it any better than we do. I don’t know if any non-British citizens had it any better than the American colonists. Right is right, and wrong is wrong, though. Our government is wrong, and the citizens of this country can make things right(or at least much closer).
We live in exactly the world you want to live in. Anarchy underlay every society in the past and will underlie every society in the future, forever. This is because, in an anarchic system, there is no law forbidding law–there cannot be–so any entity with enough power to write and impose its laws is operating perfectly within the boundaries of the larger anarchic system. It’s all anarchy, in the end. Anarchy is just the way things are, and it produced this slavery that you believe yourself to be suffering. And it will produce it again and again and again.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
We live in exactly the world you want to live in. Anarchy underlay every society in the past and will underlie every society in the future, forever. This is because, in an anarchic system, there is no law forbidding law–there cannot be–so any entity with enough power to write and impose its laws is operating perfectly within the boundaries of the larger anarchic system. It’s all anarchy, in the end. Anarchy is just the way things are, and it produced this slavery that you believe yourself to be suffering. And it will produce it again and again and again.[/quote]
I have no problem looking at things that way. That just means it’s up to those who desire freedom to help others see that it is worth the cost. I never argue for some utopian fantasy world in which everything will work forever. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance(source seems to be in dispute; possibly Thomas Jefferson).