Its simple. If you provide for his education that is one less person the government has to “steal” from you for. They would not have stolen from you to pay for him, because you already did it. If you want me to stop the government from taking from you to provide for everybody than I have to convince you to put in your part to provide for them outside of government. But you know what, there’s an easier way to do that. Its called government provided assistance.
Please just stop thinking of government as some bogeyman and become a part of the solution. Disbanding government will do nothing. A new government will step in to take its place. What you people dont understand is im on your side up until you resort to idealism. Govt should be no bigger than it has to be. I just happen to think it has to provide safety, security, education, and insurance to all its citizens. Lets find the most economical way to do that instead of saying “it will happen as soon as we get rid of government.”
The “FED” is a charter of the government and the government forces its monetary policies upon us. We are also forced to use these dollars it is legal tender.
Who’s talking about free college education?
huh?
So now you can only ask the questions and you can only have the answers? What kind of monopoly are you running?[^o)]
What’s so hard to understand about the fact that if your cousin can’t pay for X he can’t have X ? Why should ppl be enslaved so that your cousin can go to college ? Who the hell do you think he is ? Why does he deserve ‘free’ college ?
This is great. “I agree with you anarchists that government should be small, but it should also do absolutely everything and give free stuff to everyone.”
HINT: you do not support small government at all - just saying that you do doesn’t make it so.
You do not understand our argument or way of thinking. You are criticising strawmen and it is getting noone anywhere. Read some Austrian texts before telling us what to think. Otherwise, you are just trolling.
“there’s an easier way” Looking for what the government allows is easy, but deadly in the end. Leads to this whole mess that your cousin is in, oh that government.
You don’t answer direct questions, haven’t provided any inclination that you’ve read up on libertarian ideas, so, thereby your guessing and wafting in the dark. Your monopoly ideas are showing through very clearly.
Well, that’s how it is supposed to work. Problem is, some socialist anarchists like Noam Chomsky (I guess he is one, isn’t he?) are advocating a strong central government to stamp out any business greed or “bad”, capitalist attitudes before, in their view, anarchy can sustainably emerge. That’s why socialist anarchists tend to be rather scrutinized around here.
Are they really the same? If I’m a socialist anarchist, then I identify myself with a group/society. The libertarian way identifies with the individual. Now the individual can identify with a particular group/society, but doesn’t necessarily have to. Maybe your saying all libertarian’s identify with one group/society?
That’s another problem. Rigorous individualism is sometimes lacking among the socialist types. It’s a difficult relationship.
I remember one of them saying on another site I frequented that he’s all for “big government”, just not by the state, but that he supports it so long as it suppresses capitalism… some “anarchist”.
I’m not quite following you here. So we have a strong central government and it is called anarchy?
I see a way that recognizes that an individual can flex him or her self into and out of any social group is a recognition of freedom. A “socialist anarchist” right off the bat is tying the individual to the group, thus, why “socialist” in the name “socialist anarchist”.
I admittedly have read limited austrian texts. Oh, Ive tried. But its very long, drawn-out, and of a very strange worldview. I have to spend every second wrapping my mind around it that I can only get so far before I need a break. So, yes, I am rellying heavily in both my meeting people of your nature, and on brief summaries of your views.Heres what I understand.
Systems of rule only get in the way of peoples better natures. Axe the rules and people will do right.
Greed is good, it drives progress. Through peoples self-wants new products and services are created. Regulating this interaction will only cause people to scam and scheme over one another for power over the regulations.
Anybody who believes in any government at any time is a socialist. It is authoritarian to provide free education and healthcare to all citizens, or to protect them from harmful products and business practices. Doing so will only aid the tyrants.
See Im arguing that Chomsky is almost right here. You’re all working off of this ideal that we’re ready to have anarchy. We most assuredly are not. Its an evolutionary process. One day we WILL have to return to the state of our ancestors where the rules werent spelled out or enforced. But we have yet to reach the day where people will just do whats right if theres not someone there to discipline them. See, the real problem with government is when it fails to set a good example. Government is no different than a family; if its all discipline and no ethics, as soon as the fear leaves the family members do whatever THEY think is right.
contrariwise; voluntary systems of rule allow for peace and prosperity.
every rational act of man is only comprehensible as a rational act; by presupposing that the actor believes the world ‘from his subjective standpoint’ will be improved by the chosen action; if you call this greed, then what you wrote here is fine.