Why not?
I’m not sensitive to compassion for ignorant statists who revel in their ignorance and empty headedness. Know your enemy and all that good stuff. Don’t doubt that when absolute tyranny comes to where you live, these ignorant neighbors, coworkers and family members will be the ones pointing you out to the Stasi as a “wrong thinker”.
Why take it that far? These are the people who would cheer the police on as they arrested you for not paying taxes.
This is funny. You confuse my assertion that a limited role of the state is necessary while the market should take care of everything else with “statism”. I have replied to your queries more than anyone else’e, but somehow you automatically disregard my responses as irrational because they are not based on the assumptions you make.
I keep forgetting. You are the global Obama minarchist. [8-)]
Care to define that minimal role of the state that is consistent with the Obama campaign and soon-to-be Presidency?
I can handle disagreement, but I have a problem with dishonesty. Do you want me to list and link to all of the questions you have evaded?
Elementary roles like health, education, defense and assurance that the population won’t starve. Something similar to what is already in place in Canada or Scandinavia, which seems an ideal mix that guarantees the survival of its population while at the same time provides enough market freedom for anything else.
For example, the bailout to General Motors would be preferable than just letting that company die with the dead cost of closing down hundreds of plants that were very expensive to build and would not be able to be used for other endeavors.
You can try to redefine it, however you support the state, ergo you are a statist.
You don’t know what the free market is, do you?
This post is about getting a message across, that includes those who you consider enemies and ignorant neighbors, coworkers and family members. All those people will not be sympathetic to getting any message across if they perceive that the messenger looks down upon them as enemies.
You must be joking. You take the most socialist countries in the world as an example of what you advocate? You’re a statist, plain and simple. Even minarchists, who only advocate the socialization of defence, are statists. Why do you object to this label? You advocate (although it is unclear, maybe you mean Obama does?) economic insanity with regard to particular sectors of the economy. I’d embrace the label. FYI, Scandinavia is moving head-on to stagnation, and is surrounded by myths of the success of its model, not much factual reality. Bailouts have nothing to do with the free market. They have to do with socialism for the rich.
-Jon
Nowhere in your post did you define a limit which could be considered minimal.
At what cost? The issue is, you measure government size by what it provides, not by what it costs. Even by that test, you fail, but still, you haven’t learned the most basic economic lesson, that of Bastiat’s “What is seen, and what is unseen”.
So your argument is that government came before survival?
At what cost? GM is not a viable business. It is a loser, generating losses after losses. Is it a good idea to flush good money made in the productive economy down the toilet of failed businesses? Why not just burn the money in a barrel?
Where do you develop the economic rationale (forget moral or ethical) to take from winners and give to losers? How does this make economic sense? Where is the incentive to turn a profit if you can be subsidized for losses?
A free market is where producers and consumers conduct a transaction through the price mechanism. It is a good system, but as anything invented by humans, it is not perfect.
That limit varies case by case.
You and people who think like you, unfortunately, are my enemies. I don’t condone violence against you, but you wholeheartedly endorse violence against me.
When I look down on someone who endorses violence and oppression as an enemy, I am merely seeing things for what they are. Just as you and those like you, look at someone who is productive like me as a threat, and a candidate for looting. You’ve been challenged on this numerous times. You have no authority to validate ruling, stealing, killing etc. Certainly not a democratic majority. But still, you carry on as though a democratic majority does give you the right to steal and kill. That is why you are my enemy. You threaten my liberty. You want to enslave me.
More evasion. Convenient how you never have a solid answer for anything.
And funnily enough the only reason Scandanavia is slightly more prosperous than other areas in Europe is due a relatively unregulated market.
Since when was the market “invented” by anyway, that argument is far more easily applied to the state than the market. You’re attacking a straw man in any case.
It’s true. If I hear one more ignorant Canadian tell me that we have to pay our fair share, particularly when I know they are a total parasite on the system, … [:@]
In the stone ages, survival came before government. But evolution has taken place and there is no need to go back in time. Therefore today government can come before survival.
Are you saying that government comes before food and shelter?
And what I mean by that is specifically two things.
Should all resources go to government demands before meeting basic human needs?
Is government more necessary than food or shelter?
It is unfortunate that you also treat your own family members as enemies, according to a recent post. According to that post, your family members seem to be happy with the many benefits they receive from an advanced society such as the one you are blessed to live in, and do not understand why are you being so harsh to them. They might look upon you strangely, but their love to you prevents them to consider you as an enemy.