The logic does not follow. What does arguing against the state have to do with some jealous crybaby whining about how some other people have more than he/she does?
Besides, you don’t even have to get to the utilitarian argument to be against the state. I would argue the moral case is more important anyway.
My argument is that the vast majority of people who are called “poor” in this country are not really poor by any reasonable standard. I’ll gladly apply that to any debate. You’re going to have to spell out the “flaw” in that argument.
And? I’m still not getting any sort of point in this. What are you/he/she arguing? What are you suggesting be done? Is this just a wealth redistribution argument? Or do you want to outlaw employment (what people like BP call “wage slavery”)? I think it’s been made pretty clear the supposed “problem” is the fact that some people just have more stuff than Birthday Pony. What I’m wondering is, as I said, what exactly is the “solution” being advocated here. (Again, assuming there actually is one, and this isn’t all just one big Lesley Gore number.)
I’m assuming BP is arguing on an ego, not on anything else. In fact, I’m actually beginning to wonder whether the handle “birthday pony” is one big calling card for a troll, or whether it’s an actual Freudian slip by some brat who’s still bitter that daddy didn’t get her that pony when she turned sweet 16.