Is anyone here receiving a govt. pension, social security or support payments from govt?

[helmuth_hubener]

The two actions could be considered as credits and debits, with a net loss for some and a net gain for others. So it's more like the state breaks my legs, then adds insult to injury when it steals five pair of crutches from me to give to you, me, and three others who might want a pair.

While I agree this would be a good analogy, I do not understand what you mean by credits and debits and overall do not understand what you are trying to say.

From that standpoint there really is no such thing as a "public sector" when you think about it. It's all private when it boils right down to it, with everyone made a private thief, wittingly or unwittingly, by extension. As for "positively good", it depends on how you define that, but it's an oxymoron nonetheless, as those are mutually exclusive terms ("good" is absolutely and strictly normative, not positive).

And I really don't understand what you mean in this paragraph.

[Steven Douglas]

While I agree this would be a good analogy, I do not understand what you mean by credits and debits and overall do not understand what you are trying to say.

All I meant was that while we can separate two things (what is taken, what is given), there is no separation in the fact that it has a net effect on each individual. But what if you broaden that out to two individuals:

Just you, me, and the government. The government takes nothing from you. As a Very Efficient Government, it takes everything from me, and gives 90% of that to you.

The net effect on me? I'm dead broke.
The net effect on you? You have 90% of what was taken from me.

The fact that it's "in the private sector" means nothing to me, as that is an abstraction. It's not in MY private sector. In reality it's in YOUR private sector...which is really just the public sector by extension.

And I really don't understand what you mean in this paragraph.

It's all in how we throw terms around, like "private sector" and "public sector", as if they were two separate economies, with well defined borders. What does that mean anyway? A Welfare Department Procurement Specialist doesn't shop exclusively in some public sector-only shopping mall. If he goes shopping with confiscated tax funds at a Walmart, or buys some stuff directly from you even, is that private sector or public sector?

I think both terms are useless without qualification. It's all money laundering when it comes right down to it. Does it really make a difference whether a public sector employee spends stolen funds directly into the private economy (buys a bunch of stuff from your store with taxpayer money), or delivers those stolen funds to a private agent (a private recipient) who only happens to allocate it differently? Someone in the private sector benefits either way. And could wealth be created in that process? Yes, but no new wealth, as it's just redistribution. Opportunity costs dictate that it had to be at the expense of a) savings, or b) all other possible transactions that did not occur as a result of the theft.

It doesn't matter whether an allocation was made by the original person stolen from, the public sector thief, or the recipient of loot from a public sector thief. In all cases it would result in private sector redistribution of some kind, with different allocations made in each and every instance.

[helmuth_hubener]

The public sector is the state. It is that sector of human existence which is part of the organization we call the state.

The private sector is everything and everyone not part of the state, and we generally exclude criminal activity as well. So it covers all voluntary non-state human action.

Is a state employee part of the state? Yes. Walter Block, for example, is part of the state. Could we just as well say that the handout recipient is part of the state, at least when acting in their capacity as receptacle for funds? Perhaps. And so in that sense angelatc is part of the state. I think that's what you're getting at. You are saying angelatc is part of the public sector, not the private sector. But she will (likely) spend the money into private companies, and after that it's in the private sector.

In the current state of affairs, there is no absolutely clear line between private sector and public sector, it's true. Some companies are virtual extensions of the state, like Boeing or Lockheed-Martin. Many more do a large amount of business with the state. Very few actively avoid dealing with the state. Outside of Elko, Nevada, how many restaurants refuse to serve federal agents? Precious few. Virtually all businesses are also tax collectors. Tax collection is a state function.

So I agree that we're all wrapped up in the state somehow, or more accurately that the state has wrapped its tendrils of aggression all over us. Is there any conclusion in particular you were drawing from this?

[Steven Douglas]

So I agree that we're all wrapped up in the state somehow, or more accurately that the state has wrapped its tendrils of aggression all over us. Is there any conclusion in particular you were drawing from this?

I was only questioning Block's assertion that accepting public money is "positively good". I don't have any judgments toward those who do get their kneecaps broken by the state and end up applying for crutches, but I don't necessarily consider it a 'good' thing, and the rationale you gave didn't resonate with me at all.

Well, we do have a choice as to whether or not we apply for and accept AFDC, food stamps, veterans benefits, the SS blood money, etc. So should we take that choice and receive the money?

I am with Walter Block that it is not only "fine" under libertarian theory to accept these, but positively good. It is "a mitzvah" as he puts it. By doing so, you are relieving thieves of some of their wealth and putting it back into the voluntary market. You are a one-man privatization crew, removing stuff from the "public" (yuck) sector and putting it back into the private sector.

My point was that the public sector doesn't produce anything that didn't originate from the private sector anyway, so the idea that private individuals are somehow doing a service by tapping into public funds to "privatize" them is something I don't see. Again, that would be like someone stealing from me, and handing it to another. I can't see myself saying, "Well at least someone in the private sector got it, and not them."

Is a state employee part of the state? Yes. Walter Block, for example, is part of the state. Could we just as well say that the handout recipient is part of the state, at least when acting in their capacity as receptacle for funds? Perhaps. And so in that sense angelatc is part of the state. I think that's what you're getting at. You are saying angelatc is part of the public sector, not the private sector. But she will (likely) spend the money into private companies, and after that it's in the private sector.

In the current state of affairs, there is no absolutely clear line between private sector and public sector, it's true.

The line I see is similar to the line I apply to the thin-air banking system. It's all about First Users. Take out a loan, and you are a direct facilitator of the Fed System, while anyone you trade with, but who did not take out a loan, is not.

Likewise, if you take funds directly from the state, you are directly part of the state, and a facilitator of the state by extension. Those funds are laundered directly by you. In the case of food stamps, medicare, etc., the beneficiary is directly part of the state, and whoever takes funds from them is the First User (because they actively applied to accept food stamps, medicare, etc.,). In that respect Ron Paul was not a facilitator of the state, because he never accepted medicare, but if he ever took out a loan, he was a facilitator of the Fed Banking system.

Again, no judgments or condemnation of anyone who feels compelled to imbibe in either, especially when their survival depends on it. I fault the system that fucked everything up at its core, not those who get caught in its tentacles and are forced to play to survive. But that is the distinction for me, and I don't see any 'good' in it.

Virtually all businesses are also tax collectors. Tax collection is a state function.

In my view, state tax collection by businesses is no different than people who are conscripted into military service against their [erstwhile] will. Businesses may collect taxes under threat, duress or coercion by the state--and through fear of loss of life, liberty or property if they don't, but that does not make them part of the state in my mind. That's all because they aren't given a choice. If they were given a choice, and chose to do that, they'd be complicit, and very much part of the state.

[osan]

N/M

[klamath]

Wealth is created when capital is concentrated to create something of worth to a society. This worth is judged by the society by if they buy the product. While you have the state concentrating capital and producing something, you do not have society ever actually placing a value on it through the marketplace. A like example that comes to mind is if the government builds a factory that produces widgets but no one wants to buy them. There is no wealth creation by the state because it cannot sense or respond to what the society deems valuable.

However if they build a product that people do want to buy and buy in quantities beyond the capital investment they have created wealth. Electric power produced in a government built hydroelectric dam is sold on the market place and it is creating wealth.

[oyarde]

While I do not recieve govt benefits , I will gladly accept back all they have taken from me in "social security ", lump sum , Monday afternoon works .....

[cbc58]

I just can't comprehend the position of some here who think that taking from other taxpayers will make the system implode faster and then everything can reset. What do you think it's going to be like when that happens... a better situation? We may move to a Russia type scenario where the govt./military controls everything and you are surfs working for oligarchs. People will be begging the govt to take care of them.

Alot of people promoting liberty and freedom, less govt. and self-reliance -- but doing just the opposite. Digging your own grave.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I've gotten like 5k in grants, but that doesn't nearly makeup all the money paid into taxes. It was more like a tax refund.

[Occam's Banana]

We may move to a Russia type scenario where the govt./military controls everything and you are surfs working for oligarchs. People will be begging the govt to take care of them.

We ALREADY live in a "scenario where the govt./military controls everything" and people are "begging the govt to take care of them".

As for being "serfs working for oligarchs" - Russians pay a flat 13% income tax. We American serfs wish we had it so good!

Russia is no longer a whipping boy that can be trotted out whenever we need a bogeyman with which to favorably contrast America.