O RLY? You see no government corruption at all? You never see any problems created by government?
No, it isn’t. Do yourself the favor of not using strawmen.
Still repeating the same failed argument. Interestingly, democracy was thought of as a synonym of anarchy in 18th century Europe.
What incentive? How many people are on the government take? Only the people who have money or make money have any reason to get rid of the government, and a lot of those people probably make the amount of money they make because of the government. How many people actually stand to gain from the dissolution of the state?
By what mechanisms could it? Without a government to grant favors and the like, I can find no such mechanisms.
By noting the causes.
Yes. You’re using normative-case, when such is inapplicable to econ.
What are you talking about? Are telling me what my question is?
Your question ignores that value is subjective. You might benefit from raping someone, so, according to your philosophy, this is okay. However, it ignores that the person being raped does not benefit.
Look at this guys: Senate Dems strike deal on health care reform
You know how they got Nelson’s vote? The bought it. Just like they bought Landrieu’s.
"Nelson also won his own version of Sen. Mary Landrieu’s much-derided “Louisiana Purchase.” In Nelson’s case, the federal government will permanently pick up all the cost of new Medicaid enrollees in Nebraska, rather than splitting the tab with the state, as is usually done. Nelson’s Nebraska is the only state singled out for such treatment – a $45 million cost to federal taxpayers that shows the power of a single senator in this debate.
The federal government will also pick up the tab for all new Medicaid enrollees in the other 49 states through 2017."
People will always be for sale. There will always be a government willing to buy people’s votes with promises of free stuff.
You get rid of the current system, someone else will just take over with more promises.
I don’t know. Perhaps they don’t want their general quality of living to improve. Most people I meet do though. Perhaps you don’t. shrug
We are not talking in societal terms here. We are talking to you. You are not ‘society’ and siding with ‘society’ is one of the most dangerous fallacies of all. You presume to think society has the education to know whats best economically. You also presume to think it’s in society’s best interest in learning economics.
It is infact not, there is a valid argument for Rational Ignorance. Division of labor stipulates that people need to invest their time in things they are good at.
Your own liberty back. It’s much like recognizing how to regain your slack, which has been denied you by the pinkboys/normals/barbie-and-kens.
So would you support gang rape if benefited more people than it hurt?
Precisely. So remove the means of coercion. Problem solved.
Unsupported assertion. Rejected as such.
You can’t remove the means of coercion. Just the current one.
Well, obviously not.
Suppose a gang of people are about to each give a beating, would you not at least try to stop the first person from beating you, even if there are more people lined up to give you a beating?
Not obvious.
Why not, isn’t your support for the state based on that assumption that more people will benefit than will be hurt?
Sure I would.
But don’t you support government on the same grounds?