I would say “treating them along the lines of the currently accepted societal mores”.
Like the mob. A self-enriching protective agency. I don’t see why the two are mutually exclusive.
As you said, the state is parasitic. Why would any parasite with half a brain want to kill its host? People still go to work everyday, because they know the state is not going to confiscate all of their wealth. To do so would be suicide for the institution.
Also remember you must distinguish between a state and a criminal organization.
Who does?
So it’s just an odd coincidence that across societies (outside of government) it tends to mean the same set of things?
Then the state would be a protective agency in the same sense as the mob. The mob never protects anyone except from itself. That’s the original of the expression “protection money.”
They do this in the context of civilization. The question is about starting the process. A parasite would want to kill its host if it has a high time-preference, as states do.
What ever for?
What do you mean?
Well, the mob also protects its interests. The state does the same. That is why we here in the states aren’t reading Mao’s little red book kindergarten, while practicing our Mandarin.
What?
But this could easily backfire too.
Lefty: “You’ve never been poor, so you have no right to tell us if we’re right or wrong”
You’re right I’ve never been poor, but have you? If you’ve never never been poor either then you have just as little right as I do.
Lefty: "As a matter of fact yes, I have been poor.
Erhm…
Edit: I replied to this without realizing how long this thread was. This comment is probably out of place by now.
I realize this thread is pretty old, but I just came across it and had a perfect response to the original post. (And most of the 4 pages of this thread are just a dialogue between two users.)
Someone in an audience tried the same thing with Milton Friedman. His responses are the best I’ve ever heard…especially the second one, which anyone can use. (the guy breaks in at about 3:50, but watch the whole thing)
Leftist policy is the reason there even is poverty in the 21st century. If it wasn’t for their policies, humanity would be so productive that there would be no need for welfarism.
That’s a little bit of a stretch, I think
Up until recently I’v worked for only slightly more than minimum wage($8.30/hr)…so this argument really doesnt effect me.
Tell them you know a poor person who agrees with you.
I’ve been poor. Bam, argument destroyed.
It’s consistent logically. He doesn’t mean your leftism, which is just feeling emotional about stuff. He means progressive leftism. Democracy etc.
I have never been poor but I have seen poverty (in the real world - not just the television).
Okay since it seems most people can’t be bothered to view the short vid, I’ll just write it out…
In case you haven’t ever been poor (or at least poor enough to satisfy the moron who is accusing you), and you don’t want to lie, Friedman’s second response was perfect. And the great part is, he didn’t even need it.
Douche: “Have you ever been on welfare, or poor?”
Friedman: "Of course! Of course…more so than most of the people in this room!..[applause] How many of you have worked a twelve hour day and gotten paid 78 cents?
But you know that’s all irrelevant. Is there one of you who is going to say that you don’t want a doctor to treat you for cancer unless he himself has had cancer?"
I had listened to it. It was a good answer.
Haha.
It’s consistent logically. He doesn’t mean your leftism, which is just feeling emotional about stuff. He means progressive leftism. Democracy etc.
That’s still quite a stretch.
The problem with the leftism he is talking about, is that it confuses intent with means. Wanting to help someone and acting in way that helps someone, are not the same thing. The well intentioned actions of leftists for economic or military intervention have been massive fails.
It’s not a stretch at all. Affluence is caused by exchange and specialization, i.e. capitalism. Countries are poor because they attempted socialism more than rich countries. Countries are rich because they attempted socialism less than poor countries. In the 21st century absolute poverty would not exist if it wasn’t for the free lunch schemes of the left. It’s that simple.