So I’m having trouble formulating an argument against this position.
What you consider a “Government Benefit” therefore includes every possible thing which is government connected, so:
You’d probably have to pay extra to use the metro
Could no longer rely on the US Armed forces to protect you
Clearly, the police can walk past a mugger mugging you
The Fire Department can watch your property burn down and don’t even really have to listen to your 911 call unless it’s affecting property around yours
The local council won’t need to repair the potholes outside your house
You clearly can’t go to the public library any more either
Oh. yeah. Garbageman. No more. Sigh.
Water pipes. Probably owned by the local council even if the water company operates it. Yeah, nothing from there either.
This is, after all, you refusing to take part of the social contract.
And again, you can assert your right to all those wonderful things you have. Many people have done it. But they’ve sacrificed far more than you think you might have to. You’re not as independent as you think you are, unless you live on a farm or something similar where you probably had to set up your own sanitation and water.
And my point was that you can’t claim that someone is stealing your stuff when you’ve agreed to giving your money to that person. My elaboration was the mechanics of how it actually IS a mutual agreement rather than the theft which libertarians which they are.
I know it has something to do with government not actually owning all of the things he says they own, because they stole to gain it in the first place. But I don’t know a concise way to put it.
Wait a minute, is the argument that this would no longer happen without government? If so sign me up!
You’d probably have to pay extra to use the metro
Could no longer rely on the US Armed forces to protect you
Clearly, the police can walk past a mugger mugging you
The Fire Department can watch your property burn down and don’t even really have to listen to your 911 call unless it’s affecting property around yours
The local council won’t need to repair the potholes outside your house
You clearly can’t go to the public library any more either
Oh. yeah. Garbageman. No more. Sigh.
Water pipes. Probably owned by the local council even if the water company operates it. Yeah, nothing from there either.
I would go with the slave analogy. If a slave accepts a meal from his master, does that mean he is condoning slavery? (Just because a taxpayer uses a governmental service, it doesn’t mean he is agreeing to give up his property).