If government provides "services" that are so good, why do they have to use force ?

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I have told you before and will tell you again that you do not understand the difference between racism, bigotry and prejudice. You dont want to or are unable to learn it. I suspect it is on purpose cause you are not that stupid.

It does not matter because your purpose is simply to personally attack me yet again to try to diminish me somehow.

It is really sad that you feel the need to do that but on the flip side, it makes me grin IRL...

Rage on cheesybeard!!
so was your comment based in prejudice and bigotry, but not racism?

how about a straight answer already?
 

GOD HERE

Well-Known Member
Note this question and the intro was excerpted from an article written by Eric Peters.


Most people “get” that their ability to decline a service or product serves as an incentive. The seller of the service or product must convince you that the service or product is worth at least as much as the money they are asking in return. If not, and you decline, then they must try harder to convince you of the merit of what they’re selling. If they can’t convince you (or enough other people) then they go out of business. In a free economy, where willing buyers transact with sellers who cannot coerce, only services and products that have objective merit – defined by people’s willingness to purchase them – succeed. Products and services that lack merit fail – as defined by people’s lack of interest in paying good money for them.

But most people have difficulty making the intellectual (and philosophical) Great Leap Forward – applying the same reasoning, the same economic discipline, to government.
If, for example, the government really does provide valuable services – as it so often claims – then why is it necessary to force people to purchase these allegedly
valuable services? If the services provided by government really do have value, wouldn’t most people eagerly purchase them without coercion?




What is it with the voluntaryists on this site? It's even worse than the American libertarians.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
What is it with the voluntaryists on this site? It's even worse than the American libertarians.
whats with all the lefties on this site? they charge into every thread where serious issues are discussed and slap their flaccid dongs all over everything.
 

GOD HERE

Well-Known Member
whats with all the lefties on this site? they charge into every thread where serious issues are discussed and slap their flaccid dongs all over everything.
You can't take that away from me...

What don't you like about voluntary interactions? Are you a jealous god?
There's nothing voluntary about voluntaryism, just like there's nothing "free" about the free market. Those words were chosen for a reason.

You could voluntarily bend over and let business fuck you in the ass, or starve. That's what that Ancap bs gets you.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
whats with all the lefties on this site? they charge into every thread where serious issues are discussed and slap their flaccid dongs all over everything.
did you say flaccid?..not a leftie trait
..only an angry white old man gop'er whose viagra and prostate i have to pay for..
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
did you say flaccid?..not a leftie trait
..only an angry white old man gop'er whose viagra and prostate i have to pay for..

If you find paying for somebodies dick distasteful, you may want to work on becoming more interesting and perhaps take up jogging or something.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
If you find paying for somebodies dick distasteful, you may want to work on becoming more interesting and perhaps take up jogging or something.
i'm so glad you mentioned..i workout 30-90 minutes per session (most days) on my Sole Elliptical that is in my living room in front of my 55" Samsung Smart 3D TV..also have a trainer 3x/week for strength training..my favorite weight? the grappler..it's one of the things that contribute to my glowing, porcelain skin:P
 

Winter Woman

Well-Known Member
[h=1]“Rich people have small TVs and big libraries, and poor people have small libraries and big TVs.” Zig Zigler[/h]
 

see4

Well-Known Member
Those services, as no one was willing to pay for them, would not be performed.
Not paying for them has consequences. For example, Arizona, a while back, tried to have speed cameras at every intersection to cut down on accidents. It actually helped drive down accidents across the entire state for several years. Then it got out that the state was making money off the program, to the tune of $3million yearly. Well, people started to not pay these speed camera tickets. Bet you can't guess what happened next? Very little people paid, the program, at the state level, was defunded, and now accidents are up, way up. Which drive up ever increasing insurance costs. In the end, the government program put in place to regulate was rejected by the public, and now the public is paying for it.

Sometimes the government knows better because it is an accumulated opinion of the masses as opposed to general consensus of the individuals.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member

  • Sometimes the government knows better because it is an accumulated opinion of the masses as opposed to general consensus of the individuals. - see4

    How about taking a stab at the original questions I posed in the first post of this thread?​




 

Doer

Well-Known Member
“Rich people have small TVs and big libraries, and poor people have small libraries and big TVs.” Zig Zigler
Have you ever seem him? What a piece of work. That is the usual nonsensical condiscension I remember from my sales training days. Ziggy!!!
 
Top