Without the investments, the manpower can starve before the product reaches the market…
Seems as if there is a symbiotic relationship…
No less than “the right” is going to have to get over their distate for personal liberty, their communitarianism, their paternalism, their boner for tradition and executive power, for that to ever be a success.
Yes.[Y]
If justice sees its day, then a greater extent of liberty would be fulfilled and there would be no net tax consumers for there would be no government.
As noted: capitalism is not mercantilism.
Now that wilderness agrees, the revolution can begin! [:P]
I really can’t stand the right/left worldview so I have to try and figure out what each person means by it since it, at times, tends to not have a strict definition unless somebody has studied these concepts (and still disagreement may occur), and applying such extreme mental dualistic simplicities tends to narrow individuals into exclusive categories, etc…, so, leading into the question so I can try and understand you correctly:
Do you not want justice and thus no law?
Some of what you say tastes, since we are enjoying this term currently, as if it’s not anarchy you are talking about, but also tastes like you want no law… so clarity would help.
I will not be able to respond but in some unnumbered days I’ll track your response down in this thread. good day[:)]
Your point being?
Everybody in the United States relies on government-buillt infrastructure for transportation, and that infrastructure is paid for by taxes. Hence, everyone is a tax consumers. There are many other services a large majority of Americans will consume in the course of their lives that are paid by taxes, law enforcment for an example, but infrastructure is the best example.
Perhaps he could be stating something else but I think he means the ideological spectrum from Roderick Long’s piece called ‘Left and Right: Forty years later’ Honestly, I love this lecture and can’t link it enough. It is filled with such clarity.
I’ll bookmark it for some future time. Thanks.[:)]
Even if we concede your point that everyone is a tax-consumer, and you admitted that there are net tax consumers, then obviously there is a economical class structure established by the state which essentially will end with the abolition of the state. Really it seems like I am dealing with another semantics debate, like the ghost of Anarcho-Mercantilist has come skulking in here and threw a tizzy over word usage.
A government-paid job is little different from a job in the private sector for many, if not most, government-employees. They are a social “Class” in a very loose, and purely descriptive use of the term for there do not unilaterally share the same interests, and they do not even necessarily have an interest in bolstering the power of the government - their job may be merely a source of income.
I do write ad nauseum about left/right extremism, and why this is a bad worldview, if you would like I can link you something…
Mind you this was written in the days that I was a minarchist and I am concluding it as we speak… as an An-Cap
its worlds apart, because one is productive, and the other is not.
You completely missed my point: I’m speaking of the manner by which employees view the jobs.
it is really stretching to call them jobs…
No, no it isn’t; its the basic use of the term.
This potential strawman is already tiring; semantical debates have been occurring well before AM began posting :\
Please, quit the apologist lines. There is a difference between the two and you have no way of knowing whether it is solely for income. It could be a number of subjective reasons but what is not subjective is that they bloster the reach of the state through service which they prefer to do since they retain that very profession.
I wasn’t creating a strawman, I was just being sardonic. AM will not be discussed again in this topic.
So it has been written, so it shall be done.
You must go to the ‘Proving Natural Rights’ topic. You missed a good one. I think it is in the topic graveyard.