And yet you have. Why are you lying?
That’s not fulfilling the burden of proof at all. In fact: that’s the same strawman garbage I’ve stated won’t fly.
Why not try reading; it helps.
Statists have to show that ONLY THE STATE CAN PROVIDE SERVICES LIKE POLICE, COURTS, MILITARY/DEFENSE, ETC. THAT is what I and others have stated. Why did you decide to create a strawman? Did you just not read?
Because if they don’t believe that is the only organization that can, why then insist on a territorial monopoly?
NO THEY DON’T. They have shown that theirs can provide the services. If you want to say that other ways to provide the services, it’s on you to show it. Talking to you is like talking to a wall, a loudmouthed, pestilent, ridiculous Knight of BOOLSHITE wall, so this is the last time.
Please keep up your lovely attitude though. It’s wonderful when loumouthed jackasses who refuse to argue their cases beyond arguing that they shouldn’t have to argue their cases help turn people off to the cause.
Right. Why refuse to admit that market-based solutions could exist.
Yes, they do. They say that these things are so important that not only can we not trust the market to provide a solution, but the market can’t provide one anyway.
Keep up your butthurt, though; it makes me laugh to watch you complain just because you hate atheists.
The problem with your positoin, JC, is that they don’t want to let us. The state is an organization that claims a territorial monopoly on the legal use of force and ultimate decision-making. Statists don’t just hold that the state can provide certain goods and services, they hold that only it can and should. Since they hold this stronger claim, it is their burden to prove said stronger claim.
Whether they want to let us or not, doesn’t change the essential question on whether the anarchist needs to provide supports for his own position. I am not saying no efforts have been made in this direction; they certainly have. Most people won’t listen, and as you say, it’s not exactly a position that people in power are really happy to help you share. Since government propoganda ministries are what has become of the Fourth Estate, these days, it really is difficult. I am not saying, either, that statists do not have to provide evidence for their own positions, or that any particular action of the state is actually beneficial. I am saying that the burden of proof is on both sides of the argument. If neither of you are willing to argue for your positions, it winds up being the status quo we go with, because there is no way to decide that things should change.
And given that the anarchist doesn’t…
I am saying that the burden of proof is on both sides of the argument.
It seems that the argument that the market can and will provide better services is a natural conclusion of economic logic. One need not provide empirical evidence for the law of marginal utility, only argumentation.
Did you stop beating your wife?
And no, I have not had any demonstration that statists “must” do anything.
It’s not a straw-man. A straw-man would be if I said that the statists would simply point at the fact that there is, and always has been, a state, and then tried to prove that they wouldn’t do said pointing.
Fact is, such pointing is all the statist has to do to “prove” the reality of the state to the vast majority of people.
Yes, I know that’s what you’ve stated. And you can go on and on about how someone else “has” to do something to your satisfaction, and you will be ignored.
You. Will. Be. Ignored.
Yes, you have. Why are you lying?
It is. Fact is: such pointing as “proving” the case strawmans the actual argument, i.e. that the statist has to show that only a government can provide the aforementioned services. What “most people” think is completely irrelevant, as it is argumentum ad populum.
And shown.
Now then: did you have anything of merit to add here? No? Then I’ll just ignore your rantings.