Or at least that's what I was informed by a libertarian minded individual;
I'd like to point out that the "State's theft of money" is what was used to fund the development of the Internet. I'd guess the measley dozen or so millions that DARPA spent on that has returned wealth in vast abundance? Sure, there are plenty of "money pits" in govt, but it's just silly to assume that govt is all (or even primarily) parasitic in nature. What most Libertarians miss (and I say this as someone with definite Libertarian bent) is that the economy is itself a creation of the state. Without a state to create a stable system of laws, provide at least modest physical security, property rights, (which are just as fictional as "intellectual property" rights) commonly usable infrastructure (roads, telecommunications, water, garbage, etc) and a stable currency, there is no economy to speak of. There has been study after study to demonstrate this. So the idea of an economy without a state is fundamentally unworkable. I'm not saying that we need the "Federal Reserve", I'm not saying that any particular form of govt is best here, I'm only saying that the state serves a very necessary purpose in creating the conditions under which an economy can flourish. A little history is in order: When people gathered to combat the oppression of tyrannical monopolies, whether of commerce or of the nobility, the answer they came up with was.... Representative government! Oh, it's too much... | Post Points: 125
I'd like to point out that the "State's theft of money" is what was used to fund the development of the Internet. I'd guess the measley dozen or so millions that DARPA spent on that has returned wealth in vast abundance?
Sure, there are plenty of "money pits" in govt, but it's just silly to assume that govt is all (or even primarily) parasitic in nature. What most Libertarians miss (and I say this as someone with definite Libertarian bent) is that the economy is itself a creation of the state.
Without a state to create a stable system of laws, provide at least modest physical security, property rights, (which are just as fictional as "intellectual property" rights) commonly usable infrastructure (roads, telecommunications, water, garbage, etc) and a stable currency, there is no economy to speak of. There has been study after study to demonstrate this.
So the idea of an economy without a state is fundamentally unworkable. I'm not saying that we need the "Federal Reserve", I'm not saying that any particular form of govt is best here, I'm only saying that the state serves a very necessary purpose in creating the conditions under which an economy can flourish.
A little history is in order: When people gathered to combat the oppression of tyrannical monopolies, whether of commerce or of the nobility, the answer they came up with was.... Representative government!
Oh, it's too much...
Anonymous Coward: Or at least that's what I was informed by a libertarian minded individual; I'd like to point out that the "State's theft of money" is what was used to fund the development of the Internet. I'd guess the measley dozen or so millions that DARPA spent on that has returned wealth in vast abundance? Sure, there are plenty of "money pits" in govt, but it's just silly to assume that govt is all (or even primarily) parasitic in nature. What most Libertarians miss (and I say this as someone with definite Libertarian bent) is that the economy is itself a creation of the state. Without a state to create a stable system of laws, provide at least modest physical security, property rights, (which are just as fictional as "intellectual property" rights) commonly usable infrastructure (roads, telecommunications, water, garbage, etc) and a stable currency, there is no economy to speak of. There has been study after study to demonstrate this. So the idea of an economy without a state is fundamentally unworkable. I'm not saying that we need the "Federal Reserve", I'm not saying that any particular form of govt is best here, I'm only saying that the state serves a very necessary purpose in creating the conditions under which an economy can flourish. A little history is in order: When people gathered to combat the oppression of tyrannical monopolies, whether of commerce or of the nobility, the answer they came up with was.... Representative government! Oh, it's too much...
I'd like to point out that the "State's theft of money" is what was used to fund the development of the Internet. I'd guess the measley dozen or so millions that DARPA spent on that has returned wealth in vast abundance? Sure, there are plenty of "money pits" in govt, but it's just silly to assume that govt is all (or even primarily) parasitic in nature. What most Libertarians miss (and I say this as someone with definite Libertarian bent) is that the economy is itself a creation of the state. Without a state to create a stable system of laws, provide at least modest physical security, property rights, (which are just as fictional as "intellectual property" rights) commonly usable infrastructure (roads, telecommunications, water, garbage, etc) and a stable currency, there is no economy to speak of. There has been study after study to demonstrate this. So the idea of an economy without a state is fundamentally unworkable. I'm not saying that we need the "Federal Reserve", I'm not saying that any particular form of govt is best here, I'm only saying that the state serves a very necessary purpose in creating the conditions under which an economy can flourish. A little history is in order: When people gathered to combat the oppression of tyrannical monopolies, whether of commerce or of the nobility, the answer they came up with was.... Representative government! Oh, it's too much...
What most Libertarians miss (and I say this as someone with definite Libertarian bent) is that the economy is itself a creation of the state.
Your friend is totally right. The "economy" is a fabrication of the state to keep us believing that we need to push for higher GDP at the expense of everything else.
He ought to explain why property rights are fictitious, rather than just asserting it. Anyway, another stato-"libertarian". Nothing new to see here folks.
-Jon
I cannot be caged. I cannot be controlled. Understand this as you die, ever pathetic, ever fools.
Irenicus' Diaries.
Of course taxation isn't theft.
If you take something from someone by threat of harm or inprisonment, that's extortion - related, but different.
I'm not yet convinced that there is no need for government, but I'm pretty sure that government involvement in the economy is a bad idea.
You may ask your "libertarian" friend what studies they're citing - I'd like a look at them myself.
Danno
The avatar graphic text:
"Are you coming to bed?"
"No, this is important"
"What?"
"Someone is wrong on the internet."
Adam: Your friend is totally right. The "economy" is a fabrication of the state to keep us believing that we need to push for higher GDP at the expense of everything else.
Excellent post.
The State has suddenly and quietly gone mad. It is talking nonsense; and it can’t stop. —G.K. Chesterton
Taxation isn't theft unless it hurts people. The fact that no one cares about the poor robber's reason to steal is a prime example of this!!!!
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
taxes are extortion,but if you must tax, tax corporations and not the people and never allow government the right to take your property without due compensation
we must resist the borg
anonnymous: taxes are extortion,but if you must tax, tax corporations and not the people and never allow government the right to take your property without due compensation
You are right, for a second I thought corporations were made up of people, then I realized they are just a bunch of mindless robots with no rights to property.
"The plans differ; the planners are all alike"
-Bastiat
Corporations as they exist today are purely creations of the state. They are artificial persons with legal statuses of their own, and rights superior to those of any of the individuals within them. They are collectivist artifices which exist apart from the individuals who work "for" them.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Roads? Ah shoot! I never thought of that.
That's what I was forgetting all along.
correct, they are creations of the state and therefore can be taxed by the state,
anonnymous: correct, they are creations of the state and therefore can be taxed by the state,
No they aren't. They are recognized by the state, but they are not created by the state. The state recognize certain rights, like property, but that does not mean property is a creation of the state.(Contrary to whatever Marxist think)
This anti-corporatism is just Marxist infiltration.
"But, without the state, who will build the roads!?"
Agora! Anarchy! Action!