Those are the most unscientific graphs in history. You aren't avoiding the logical point I made...that you support state socialism (coercion legalized and institutionalized, as opposed to a free market where competition with the state is legal, and refusing to pay the state in favor of one its competitors is legal).
Hence, I saidIn a tax choice system, Tom the Taxpayer will be able to choose how he spends his taxes. For example...he can spend his taxes on...
A. public healthcare
B. public education
C. rape cages
You are just proving my point exactly.What you call "choice" is just giving the slaves the right to choose which color shirt they will buy, but they MUST, on threat of violence, buy a shirt (even if they don't want one, need one, etc.), and they MUST only buy their shirt from the pre-approved vendors. They can choose not to fund the short sleeve department, or the no sleeves bureaucracy, but if they choose not to fund those, they MUST fund the long sleeve manufacturers by process of elimination.
1. Rape cages are the fault of the government, because as a monopoly/monopsony/cartel granter, it has less pressure from competition driving prices down, driving up quality of service, and making the service providers more accountable to consumers. This is an inescapable law of economics; coercive monopoly, monopsony, and cartel cause higher prices, lower quality service, and less accountability.Now, clearly you're not a fan of rape cages. So I get that you want to eliminate them. But if Tom the taxpayer chooses to spend his money on rape cages...then clearly the government is not the problem.
2. I'm not against prisons in a free market, where sociopaths are kept to protect us all from them, and them from us (once they piss off enough people via their victimization). I'm against what prisons have become under the state - rape cages. More men are raped every year in the USA than women, and most women are raped outside prisons, while most men are raped in prisons. They ARE rape cages (it's not a hyperbole, and it's only euphemism to refer to them otherwise), and there is no honest market demand for rape cages...there is only a market demand that a tiny number of people be put in prisons to work to remunerate victims and be kept from victimizing others, whether for a limited time or permanently (sociopaths would be permanent, most likely). We currently, under the state, have about 50% of the people in rape cages for nonviolent offenses...because of their monopoly/monopsony/cartel creations.
3. The government is always the root problem, as society didn't have these same issues in statelessness for thousands of years of legal systems. The entire legal system was tort, and there was no criminal law (the criminal law was the state's attempt to tap into the lucrative tort system of customary law, by inventing "violations of the King's Peace", or as we call them today, "crimes against the state", aka victimless crimes). There were no victimless crimes in stateless societies, so no rape cages existed (although prisons sometimes did, but if not, they had outlawry to deal with people who modern folks would lock away), and no criminal law existed...only tort law (which could resemble modern criminal law as long as a victim existed).
4. You keep using 'taxpayer" and "choice" in the same breath, when "taxpayer" logically implies a lack of choice. It's like saying you give slaves the right to work for whatever master they choose, insofar as they remain slaves otherwise, and then referring to that as "slave choice". There is no such thing as "taxpayer choice"...you are simply giving them MORE choice than they would have now, but not a REAL choice, via A) not forcing them to fund the state's monopoly/monopsony/cartels, and B) not using violent threats to keep out possible competition so they can spend their money with those competitors and not the state.
No, I think people should have the choice to NOT buy cigarettes (the many different things the state does), not just to choose between a variety of brands of cigarettes (individual departments of the state and the services each one individually provides) or face property seizure and rape cages for refusal to buy cigs (fund the state) they don't want or need. I also think a monopoly or cartel for cig production (the state's monopoly/monopsony/cartels) is unnecessary, and no threats of violence should be used to artificially limit choice for those who DO want to freely choose to buy cigs.It's like you think that eliminating cigarette companies will eliminate the demand for cigarettes.
You, on the other hand, want to monopolize/cartelize cig production, artificially limit the brand choices to only those pre-approved brands, threaten any competition with violence who dare to better serve cig consumers by increasing the number of brands to choose from, and therefore lower the price of cigs, increase the quality of cigs, and make cig manufacturers more accountable to consumers. You also want to make people buy cigs, whether they want them or not....they only get to choose which brand to buy (tax choice). If they don't choose one cig brand or the other, by default they still have to buy one. They neither get a choice to buy from whomever they like, nor do they get the choice to not buy at least one of the brands available.
And if you think there is demand for the state's monopoly/monopsony/cartels it creates, then you can legalize competition and legalize not paying the state, and consumers will choose to keep it around or shift demand to its competitors. Yet, you refuse to do this, and simultaneously tell me about it (as if I don't understand market economics). Take your own advice.
Using your metaphor, you want to force people to buy cigarettes whether or not they really demand them, and you want to limit their choices as to which brands they can buy when they do buy them by outlawing most competitors. I want no artificial pressure to fund the state's services (artificial demand via coercion), and no artificial limits of their potential competition in the market (which would redirect funds away from them if consumers were given a choice). YOU want both artificial demand via forced payment (tax), and YOU want to artificially limit competition (people can choose which things to fund within the state, but cannot choose to not fund any of it, and cannot choose alternate competitors on the markets).
You disdain free will, apparently, and think people need to be forced into paying for services they supposedly demand and think it's better to have higher prices, lower quality service, and less accountability to consumers by artificially limiting competition. It makes neither sense in a utility maximization sense, nor an ethical sense.
I'm beating a dead horse here. I've completely proven my point, and you've helped me do it (with your own responses) - even if you didn't realize it.
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us