It would prove that private companies have almost never built roads.
Oh, and no, it wouldn't. You can't prove that there will be a lack of road builders in a stateless society by looking at the number of road builders that exist in a statist society.
Let's pretend that we were not allowed to choose who we would marry. It would be completely up to the government. They were the ones who would pick your partner for you. Growing up under such a system, most people tolerated and even supported this system.
"We need to get rid of government!" Someone once said.
"Get rid of government? But look at all the people getting married because of the government. If we get rid of the government, people will stop getting married. If people stop getting married, there will be no more united families. We need the government to get married."
This is the same for roads. If the only thing you can see is the government making roads, it is ridiculous to assume that without the government they would no longer exist.
This debate is over.
Now this debate is over.
Let's pretend that health care works as good as what everyone claims.
We are still forced to "help" each other by means of coercion. If your solution to helping others is to put a gun to my head, then I won't continue debating with you. You can't win a debate with someone who uses a gun to solve all their problems.
Kevin - you don't understand. The point is that so-called "Universal Healthcare" hurts far more than it helps - it's inefficient from a utilitarian perspective.
Oh, and no, it wouldn't. You can't prove that there will be a lack of road builders in a stateless society by looking at the number of road builders that exist in a statist society.
Let's pretend that we were not allowed to choose who we would marry. It would be completely up to the government. They were the ones who would pick your partner for you. Growing up under such a system, most people tolerated and even supported this system.
"We need to get rid of government!" Someone once said.
"Get rid of government? But look at all the people getting married because of the government. If we get rid of the government, people will stop getting married. If people stop getting married, there will be no more united families. We need the government to get married."
This is the same for roads. If the only thing you can see is the government making roads, it is ridiculous to assume that without the government they would no longer exist.
Whatever, just tell me ten companies.
This debate is over.
Now this debate is over.
Why? Because you know you will lose?
Let's pretend that health care works as good as what everyone claims.
We are still forced to "help" each other by means of coercion. If your solution to helping others is to put a gun to my head, then I won't continue debating with you. You can't win a debate with someone who uses a gun to solve all their problems.
I'm not pointing a gun at you, I'm talking about whether pointing a gun at you to help people is righteous.
Ignoring that which is not seen - the food, healthcare, education, etc. has alternative uses.
Not going to make much of a point here until you clarify your statement. The way I read that is: "If we can't see it, then it isn't a problem." Esentially I get the feeling you're suggesting we close our eyes to the problems of our apathy ridden society.
Esentially I get the feeling you're suggesting we close our eyes to the problems of our apathy ridden society.
Sorry wolf - you've walked in on a debate that's been going on for many pages already. I've explained this all before... *retrieving quotes*
Government spending money - it "stimulates" the economy more if they don't spend the money at all. It's fallacious to look at the amount of money spent, but instead, you have to look at capital.
The value of money is dependent on how people value money, which itself is dependent on the supply of money and the amount of goods buyable with money. Ultimately, the economy itself depends not on the money itself, but on the goods that are produced.
We'll look at 3 scenarios - Government spends the money, Government burns the money, Government taxes less.
Scenario 1 - Government spends the money
If the government spends the money, they must choose where to spend the money. Now, understand how the free market works - by companies competing with one another, there is competition, and the most able company - the one that is the most able to engage in mutually beneficial trades with consumers is the one that will be victorious.
Government spending, however, upsets the mutually beneficial trades between consumer and company by helping one particular company - giving it an unfair advantage over the other companies. Thus, certain companies may be favored that are more inefficient at satisfying the consumer (through mutually beneficial trades) than other companies because of government sponsorship.
Now let's look at scenario 2.
Scenario 2 - Government Burns the Money
It looks awful - the government is burning the money! However, notice that the government is - 1. Decreasing the supply of money, and 2. Not affecting the amount of goods in the country. They are doing nothing but affecting inflation. In fact, they are making everyone else's money worth more!
Obviously, severe deflation, like in the Great Depression can have a negative impact, especially if a person is at a constant income or making constant payments over several years. However, notice that you're not hurting the economy directly - you're only making everyone else's money be worth more.
Scenario 3 - Government taxes less
If the government taxes less, then the government will have a smaller share of capital, meaning that people will have a relatively larger share of capital. Because of this, people will be able to have certain trades that they would not have had otherwise. Through free trade, they will be able to "stimulate" the economy in a more efficient way.
Ignoring that which is not seen - the food, healthcare, education, etc. has alternative uses.
Your grammar is terrible. You're using a gerund and using the preterit of see. You cannot combine those two in a sentence unless you have a "to be" verb separating the compund sentence. An example of which would be, "While I was walking, I saw a dog pass by." You used a simple sentence and had two tenses, which is not correct, ever. Speak proper English and I might listen to you.
Your grammar is terrible. You're using a gerund and using the preterit of see. You cannot combine those two in a sentence unless you have a "to be" verb separating the compund sentence. An example of which would be, "While I was walking, I saw a dog pass by." You used a simple sentence and had two tenses, which is not correct, ever. Speak proper English and I might listen to you.
They're not in the same sentence - They're separated by a dash...
Anyway, grammar is only useful to get your point across. Have you ever made a careless post? I will suppose yes. Your "criticism" is asinine.
Third, this is completely irrelevant. Don't try to weasel yourself out of a legitimate response. WEPR is where we pursue truth, only the truth, and nothing but the truth. (And don't comment on my grammar in the last sentence).
