Hermes hits the nail on the head (his own!). Only the government would fund something likely to be unprofitable, hence making society poorer. You, as a beneficiary of that policy, may end up being profitable anyway, but so what? Just because I may win the jackpot doesn’t make casino gambling a good investment.
He happily avoids me…
I am anti-social, I can provide for myself without his precious parasites…
I remember my first beer, too. [B]
That one is a little fuzzy, I think it had to do with the rest after it…
sry. i got quick banned. sometimes i get crass and overtsep my bounds… my apologies
What did I avoid? I like comic books and shaking keys? lol
Yes, I get it. This is a private forum. And you have the right to ban me. Yet it is no less ironic that someone calling themselves a student of liberty would ban anyone at anytime; but this time i understand y so. no worries. just surprised it opened back up.
but were diverging fro the point. There are certain necessary things that are not profitable, and that were not, and will not be provided by any “free” market system. If you were to do these things, the resulting general prosperity would and has lifted the situation of the society as a whole (these things we call Golden Ages, etc).
Like a football game, if you want to play, you have to play by the rules. (to paraphrase, i think, thom hartman)
The only possible way i can see your system working is if we do what Jefferson said and ban inheritance; but i dont c anyone jumping at that solution either…
I must go tho. perhaps I will be able to respond at a later hour.
As a fellow “student of liberty” my understanding of the nature of liberty doesn’t mean that there aren’t any rules, simply that there aren’t any rulers.
Name one.
Or just have the government change the rules you don’t like?
Why?
Thats true in the loose (nonmonetary) sense of profit. People help old ladies across the road not because they get money from it, but because it gives them a subjective, internal profit. The reason you choose to make a particular choice over an infinite number of alternatives is because in your subjective perception of the world, that choice is most “profitable”. Now, you might be wrong, due to information barriers and such, but the market works to correct that sort of thing.
If the parasite proves destructive of the organism’s well-being, its removal is mandatory… and guess which parasite is just so…
You’re not very intelligent, are you?
So the poor/middle class person is benefiting by the artificially high prices caused by government monopoly/regulations of roads, schools, food, housing, zoning, car emissions, imported goods, subsidies etc, etc, etc? They also benefit from the taxes which trickle down from every sector of the entire economy to be paid by those who purchase the goods for consumption? That makes great sense.
The productive rich get to higher those great asset managers from the crappy schools they were forced to fund. Clearly, everyone is so much better off. Lets go dig some holes, hide money in the bottoms, fill it with dirt, then higher mining companies to dig it back out! We’ll be rich!
So, you’re asking us to look at a scientific fact, and then analyze it using preconceived philosophies and ideologies?
What a silly question. A “simple scientific fact” is not open to a “philosophical response”. Facts leave no room for interpretation, and they leave no room for criticism.
They’re just facts.
CAREFUL he may take that as admission that you agree with him…