Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same as another person's that my reasoning is the same
"You mean that back before civilization economics was much simpler?" asks the Ten-Year-Old.
"Yes," says the Thirteen-Year-Old. "Back then, Principles of Economics books were really simple. They said: '(1) Find a rock. (2) Throw the rock to kill some small furry creature. (3) Eat the small furry creature.' That was it."
"But then things became more complicated. People invented farming, and some people became peasant farmers who grew the crops."
"And other people became workers who made pots," says the Ten-Year-Old. "And other people became blacksmiths who made spears."
"And," says the Thirteen-Year-Old, "then the people who got the spears told the peasants and the workers to give them half their crop--or else!"
Posted by P6 at October 27, 2003 07:19 PM | Trackback URL: http://www.prometheus6.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2124"then the people who got the spears told the peasants and the workers to give them half their crop--or else"
Yes, but those who have the monopoly of violence are more commonly called "The government" cos "people who got the spears" sounds a bit silly.
Sounds like one anti-statist in the making...
Yes, but those who have the monopoly of violence are more commonly called "The government" cos "people who got the spears" sounds a bit silly.
Actually, they are more commonly called "raiders." When the people organize to defend themselves and support the defenders with a portion of their output, the committee that insures the defenders are properly fed and clothed is commonly called "the government."
Subtle difference.
Sounds like one anti-statist in the making...
Could be a realist.
Dog of Flanders would be right - if the government hadn't been formed by consent of the people.
Or is it that people have the freedom to do whatever they want by mutual consent except to consent to form a government?
This is one of the most ridiculous things about libertarianism.
Ehm. There's a tiny bit of difference between consent and majority.
The problem being that a government does not limit its taxation to people who consented to its formation.
Those people can leave.
And as long as they are receiving as much as or more than they give (police protection, fire, sanitation and water, public parks, military, education services, etc) they have no grounds for complaint.
As long as government services cost them less than they would have to pay to get equivalent services on a one-off basis and they would get those services for their own good (don't tell me about the right to arm, because a horde of other folks with that same right will outnumber you and take your shit) then all the complaints about taxation are hollow.