I have not said that even once. I was pointing out that all your rhetoric about wanting "less government" is really about wanting a government only for the purpose of assisting property owners to exploit people. I would not call that less government, I would call it a government with a different focus.Originally Posted by Sharke
When I referred to "no government" as an outcome (but not your intention), I meant that a government with such a narrow focus -- that exists only to serve the interests of property (and not people) will in time cease to resemble anything respectable and (in effect) simply serve as a principle uniting a bunch of semi-independent fiefdoms (as has been observed, eg, in parts of Africa and Afghanistan), where a small number of people own everything, and so everyone else is forced to do whatever they ask just in order to have somewhere to live. Very "Noble" minded you are, Sharke.
If reasoning by your standards is just spouting rhetoric and throwing mud, no, I guess I don't see how anyone is going to do that "objectively".That's entirely due to your inability to reason objectively.
Well, here's an idea for you. If you are all about freedom (which, to me implies choices, and not a lack thereof), I think a sort of "opt-in" system would be in keeping with the idea of "direct democracy" and also a very interesting social experiment. So as a business owner, you could opt in to pay taxes and be responsibly regulated (labour standards, environmental standards, the FDA, etc) or, you could "opt-out", pay no tax and be subject to no regulation. The difference would be that you could then make no claims (other than unverifiable personal ones) about the safety of the workplace and your products. In other words, if you want to pay people $2 hour, dump toxic sludge into the river, and sell food with cholera and lead flakes in it, you can go right ahead.No private corporation or business has the right to abrogate anyone else's rights. For example, they have no right to physically enslave an employee or otherwise force them to work. They do, however, have the right to offer whatever wages they want to offer, the same as an employee has the right to accept those wages or take his labor elsewhere.
It could be that everyone would just opt out. However, it could also be that there would be enough people who'd prefer to spend their money in places that are held up to guaranteed, third party standards, and which contribute back to the community in a reasonably objective manner thru taxation, to ensure that such willing partners in society exist. Of course, no one in the opt-in system would have as good a chance to amass as much individual wealth as those who opt-out (in theory, at least), but the opt-in would obviously come with some public perks, such as services like health care, education, et. al. Probably everyone would be happier that way since they would be making a choice, instead of being forced to participate in something they resent.
I'd be very fascinated to see where that would go -- I think it would better reflect the general will of the population from place to place (so some places would end up mostly opt-in, others would end up all opt-out). At that point, you're free to move.
