Almost all current social services are either unneeded or attenable to the private sector. The very small remainder can only be covered in one of two ways - 1. Donations 2. Everyone has a gun put to their head.
In a voluntary society you wouldn't have police. The market would put any provider of unsafe food out of business. Pavement (roads, infrastructure) is completely attenable to the private sector.
No what you want is for a third party to collect the money by force (violence) and then redistribute it as they see fit. And the way they see fit is to keep most of it for themselves, destroy some, and give a tiny bit that's left back to you. THIS IS WHAT IS DISTROYING YOUR COUNTRY and mine.
Liberals like you never ask yourself how much more efficient it would be if people would not be taxed and instead donate even 10% of what they would have been taxed to the causes they believe in. You can't see this because you are so selfish and greedy that you cannot comprehend that anyone would donate money.
So let me get this straight. You want to have a third party threaten everyone with violence in order to get everyone to turn over a percentage of their property so that the third party can keep most of it for themselves and then redistribute a small portion of it with the net result being that almost everyone is poorer than they would have been. This is what you want?
And where did you get that this is the only way that serfdom can be prevented? In the early part of the past century the trajectory of the American working class was moving up - and fast. Then the third party decided to fix it.
Slashdot Mirror
Almost all current social services are either unneeded or attenable to the private sector. The very small remainder can only be covered in one of two ways - 1. Donations 2. Everyone has a gun put to their head.
In a voluntary society you wouldn't have police. The market would put any provider of unsafe food out of business. Pavement (roads, infrastructure) is completely attenable to the private sector.
Which country in particular are you referring to. The voluntary societies I have researched did quiet well.
I can't see where I did this in my post, but hey, if you say so. Not sure how it relates to the argument either way.
No what you want is for a third party to collect the money by force (violence) and then redistribute it as they see fit. And the way they see fit is to keep most of it for themselves, destroy some, and give a tiny bit that's left back to you. THIS IS WHAT IS DISTROYING YOUR COUNTRY and mine. Liberals like you never ask yourself how much more efficient it would be if people would not be taxed and instead donate even 10% of what they would have been taxed to the causes they believe in. You can't see this because you are so selfish and greedy that you cannot comprehend that anyone would donate money.
So let me get this straight. You want to have a third party threaten everyone with violence in order to get everyone to turn over a percentage of their property so that the third party can keep most of it for themselves and then redistribute a small portion of it with the net result being that almost everyone is poorer than they would have been. This is what you want? And where did you get that this is the only way that serfdom can be prevented? In the early part of the past century the trajectory of the American working class was moving up - and fast. Then the third party decided to fix it.
Okay, you pay for it.
You are the one who is greedy demanding that others pay for you.