Why Statists Always Get it Wrong

As has already been argued by N. Stephan Kinsella, he totally misses Rothbard's point. Furthermore, he fails to show why people would not choose to voluntarily pay for services which would benefit them double, as has been pointed out by Bob Kaercher.

Even so, I wish to offer another analysis of Milsted's reasoning. His article is a good example of why statists always seem to get it wrong — and why they always fail to understand what we're talking about. The bottom line is that they fail to realize the costs of force due to their unwillingness to see the state for what it is. I will therefore use Milsted's own example to shed light on his fundamental mistake.

Milsted takes the case of national defense, which is commonly considered an institution that would face the free rider problem if supplied on the market. Argues Milsted: "suppose the majority assesses a tax on everyone to spread the burden of supporting the new defense system. This is theft of the minority. However, suppose that the economies of scale are such that this tax is less than half of what people would have had to pay for defense on their own."

That's the argument, plain and simple. If it is morally permissible to steal when the victim is compensated double, the equation seems to fit. Well, let's look into this in more detail and see if it really does.

First, consider a situation where everybody benefits, say, $10,000 on a yearly basis from being protected by a national defense. That would mean, if the premise is correct, that it would be morally permissible to force costs of no more than $5,000 on everybody.

Were it a company supplying a service worth $10,000 to each of its customers paying only $5,000 for it, this would be easy. Anyone willing to pay the $5,000 would get the service, and the costs associated with administration and so forth would have to be covered by the $5,000 paid. But Milsted argues the $5,000 should be taxed, and that makes it much more difficult.

First of all, we know state-run businesses and authorities (especially if they are monopolies) tend to be much less efficient than private enterprises. That means people in Milstedistan would get less than they would in a free market society. But even so, there is still the cost of coercion totally neglected by Milsted in his article.

Forcing people to pay for a service means there will always be someone who tries to avoid paying or even refuses to pay. So "we" (i.e., the state) need to invest in collection services to get the money. Now, let's say Murray, who is one of the people we're trying to coerce, goes out to buy a rifle and then declares that he's "anti-government, so get the hell off my property." Perhaps he even threatens to kill the collection agents. Dealing with him would take a whole lot more out of the budget, meaning there is even less to provide for the defense (which is the reason we're in business in the first place).

But that's not all. Let's say Murray won't give us the money no matter how much we ask or threaten him. We will simply have to take it by force, so we need to invest in the necessary tools and we go out to hire a dozen brutes to do the forcing. (More money down the drain … ) It is already pretty obvious we're in a very expensive business; there will not be much defense left if there are a lot of Murrays in our society.

Now imagine our hired brutes go down the street to Murray's house and knock on his door. He sticks his rifle out the window and shouts something about having the right to his property and that he will shoot to kill. Anyway, the brutes try to open his door only to find it is locked and barred. They will have to break in to finally get their hands on Murray's cash.

Our small army goes back to their van to get their tools, then returns to break down Murray's door. Going inside, they manage to avoid all the bullets Murray is firing and they tie him up and put him in the closet. They eventually find that he does not have any valuables and that he keeps his cash in a locked safe. So they have to break it to get the money.

Now we have a problem. To make this operation morally permissible, the benefit to Murray, which we know is $10,000, must be at least double the cost forced on him. The cost is now a whole lot more than the cost of the national defense; it includes administration and collection costs, hiring the brutes and their tools, as well as the broken door and safe, and the time and suffering (and perhaps medical expenses) Murray has lost while we were stealing from him. How much do you think is left from the original $5,000 to invest in a national defense? Not much.

What if Murray suffers from paranoia and therefore had invested $1,500 in an advanced special security door and $2,000 in an extra security safe? Then the total cost of simply getting into Murray's safe would probably exceed the $5,000 we are "allowed" to steal. What then? Should we break in anyway since it is a mandatory tax, only to give him a check to cover what's above the $5,000 mark? That doesn't sound right.

But on the other hand, if we just let him be, more people would do the same as Murray only to get off, and we would have a huge problem on our hands. This is a typical state dilemma: it costs too much to force money from some people, but it would probably be much more "expensive" in the long run not to. It's a lose-lose situation.

Now, what if Murray is very poor and doesn't have the $5,000? Then we would have to take whatever he's got and make him work off the rest. We need to get the $5,000 to cover our expenses of the national defense, and we have the right to take that amount from him. It could, of course, be argued he couldn't possibly benefit $10,000 from a national defense if he has no money and no property. If we trust Austrian economics, that might very well be correct; the benefit of national defense would, like any other product or service, be valued subjectively and thus the benefit would be different for each and every individual.

If this is true, it means we have an even greater problem: the state can rightfully levy costs of a maximum of half the subjective benefit enjoyed. Well, that's a task that would keep an army of Nobel Prize winners busy for a while. If possible, I wonder how much that would cost in the end.

This is the problem statists face on an everyday basis when discussing philosophy and politics. It is easy to make nice equations and formulas, and theorize on great systems and cheap solutions neatly enforced by the state. But when consistently failing to realize the costs of coercion it makes their reasoning fundamentally flawed. Just scratching the surface reveals they really have no clue whatsoever.

Per Bylund works as a business consultant in Sweden, in preparation for PhD studies. He is the founder of Anarchism.net. Send him mail. Visit his website. Comment on the blog.

Do you deny bringing “fiery vengeance” and shooting into the discussion or are you saying they aren’t forms of force?

Self defense is one thing; initiation of force is another. Way, way back at the beginning I pointed out that you shouldn't confuse defensive and aggressive uses of force, but between then and now you appear to have developed amnesia.

In addition, you’re saying that my claim to explain myself to a judge and jury is not legitimate, which means you claim that my right to a trial by jury is not legitimate. Do you ever read your own stuff?

Of course those things are not legitimate. The only right there is, is the right to have, use and defend your own property. If you don't want to spend all your energy personally patrolling your property, then of course you can contract out your self-defense if you wish; you can also enter into various contracts with others, such as your neighbors and those with whom you do business.

Some of those contracts might stipulate the use of binding arbitration, for example. That's your prerogative. If you make no provision for the settling of disputes, then you'll have to settle on a method that is mutually agreeable with whomever you next find yourself at odds. Since both of you are rational beings, that will likely include some form of negotiation arbitrated by some third party.

That third party will have to be someone you've agreed upon, though. When you speak of a "judge and jury," you're assuming that someone out there has a monopoly on dispute resolution--namely the government--and that everyone must obey the dictates of that government. This monopoly even extends to disputes in which the government is the defendant, of course. How convenient.

Shouldn’t you return whatever property you obtained as a benefit of your Chain of theft?

This too has already been covered; your amnesia is in full force again. Oh well, I'll repeat the answer.

The answer is yes. An illegitimate owner cannot pass title; the legitimate owner can and does pass title to that which was stolen from him. If someone can demonstrate that he is heir to the property I occupy, and that my presumed title is in fact illegitimate, then my property properly belongs to him and not me.

Until and unless the rightful owner shows up and proves his claim, however, I am acting in good faith in supposing that I received my land by legitimate transfer of title.

The implication for the USA is that most land will not be reclaimed. In some cases the rightful owners are all dead. In other cases, the land was in fact unowned--native Americans did not occupy the entirety of the continent. In other cases, the rightful owner may or may not be alive today, but he doesn't know he is, or else he knows he is but can't prove it.

Any Indian who can prove rightful title, and any descendant of slaves likewise, is completely entitled to what is his, with interest as applicable.

And in the unlikely event you prevail, my heirs may sorrow but they won’t accept it. You will have initiated “Blood Feud."

Interesting. I didn't know you were an ign'ant hillbilly. I've rarely met any of those, though I have seen "Deliverance." Most people are too rational to go to war when they know that whoever they're avenging had it coming, for example because he was caught in the act of committing a crime such as theft or trespassing.

Luckily, that more rational majority will resort to arbitration, or will defer the matter to their defense agency which, being far too cost-conscious to get into shooting wars lightly, would negotiate a settlement with my defense agency, payable through their respective insurers.

The best you’ll be able to do is stay hidden somewhere on the pitiful plot you claim, perhaps scurrying out at night to resupply. That is the world of your vision.

Finally you articulate the real issue as you see it: lack of a government implies that the world turns into the "Wild Wild West" in which everyone is shooting everyone. You're mistaken, however: the "Wild Wild West" you picture existed only in the movies. The west was essentially anarchistic at first, and it was also surprisingly peaceful and civilised.

And ownership of something can change. You don’t have to sell it or anything; it can even be stolen from you.

You mean a thief owns what he stole? Um, no. You have a strange notion of "ownership".

But you still threw in some assumptions to which I have to reply that I fail to recognize the validity of you making all the rules, setting terms and conditions...

I make no rules, terms or conditions, except one: touch my person or my stuff, and you'll face the grim consequences. Further, I'll point out that I expect no less from you--though if you're pansy enough not to defend your self and property, that isn't really my problem.

I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement with the blanket terms you are trying to force on me...

You keep trying to apply the argument against social contracts, and use it against the existence of property rights themselves. The argument doesn't work. You are trying to say that before my property truly becomes mine--before I have the right to defend it--you must admit that it's mine by signing a contract to that effect. Naturally, everyone else on earth must also sign such a contract, since your signing would only mean that you admit that I have the right to self-defense.

The reality is that I have the right to self defense, just as you do, and neither of us has to ask anyone to validate that right. It simply is. It has been practiced since the first rodent-like placental mammal snarled at another rodent-like placental mammal when it tried to take food away from the first rodent-like placental mammal.

Man's rational mind contributes something extra, however. As recently as, oh, today, apes as primitive as oh, say, homo sapiens sapiens has willingly violated the property rights of others when they had enough force to get away with it. Thanks to the power of reason, we can deduce that everyone's property rights are equally sacrosanct. If you reject that deduction, then by all means invade my property. Go ahead, I dare you.

I was already starting to think of him as a predator or parasite; the kind of thing productive, cooperative people join together to get rid of.

You are redefining "parasite" to mean "someone who refuses under any circumstances to take anything that doesn't belong to him, nor to harm anyone else's person or property." The opposite of "parasite" is someone like yourself, a "productive, cooperative" member of society, who considers it his right to use roads paid for with money stolen from "the rich".

The probability is roughly 85% that I pay more than you in taxes. (If you have a graduate degree, the probability is about 50%, and if you have a doctoral degree, the probability is about 25%.) But the top 1% of earners pay 34% of the cost of those roads you ride on; the bottom 50% pay none of the cost.

In short, you are 85% likely to be a parasite leaching off me, and you're 99% certain to be a parasite leaching off the top 1% of income earners. But I'm a parasite. Can you lend me a Newspeak dictionary so I can keep up with you?

I take it you are admitting you erred when you said “Force is not involved.” Good on you.

There you go again. In discourse of this type, "force" is shorthand for "initiation of force", and is never intended to include self-defense. I already explained that to you, but you apparently forgot.

So it's Ok for all of us productive cooperative people to join together and get rid of a predator/parasite like yourself. That's the consequence of your words.

I'd be fascinated to see the "logic" whereby you conclude that. If I initiate non-defensive use of force against your person or property, then you (and/or your agents) can take steps to defend you. If I mind my own business, neither you nor anyone else has any right to interfere with me in any way whatsoever.

By the way, those contracts you wrote about: I might say I've already got something like that and it says I have a right (a contractual right if you will) to a trial by jury.

Namely, a "social contract." You do like to beg the question, that's for sure. Unfortunately, that "contract" isn't a contract.

I'm beginning to see where you are getting your ideas izzy:

-- The Myth of the Social Contract --

The social contract theory of the State has it that the State is formed by the agreement of the People to establish a monopoly on legitimate violence to perform certain functions.
Social contract theorists sometimes disagree about the nature and scope of the State's functions, but most agree that they include, at a minimum, providing police, courts, & the military. Many social contract theorists argue that other things should be done by the State, but few besides anarchists question whether the State should do these things at all.
For the sake of this discussion, then, let's stick to these three. If the theory holds for them, then it may hold for others as well. If it doesn't hold for these, then it may be difficult to see how it could justify additional State functions.

On this minimal conception of the functions of the State, then, social contract theory has it that the People are obligated to pay taxes to the State and abide by its rules in exchange for the protection they get from the police, courts, & military.

In turn, the State is obligated to protect the People. In theory, there is mutual agreement between the People & the State to these terms and this substance, and there is mutual obligation. But does this theory hold in practice? In practice, is there really mutual agreement and mutual obligation about this relationship?

I will argue that, in practice, neither mutual agreement nor mutual obligation can be found in the relationship between the People and the State. Further, I will argue that, in practice, there is no such social contract.

Some argue that the Constitution of a country is the social contract. But, as Lysander Spooner pointed out, written Constitutions have "no inherent authority or obligation."
They have "no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man." At most, they can only be contracts between those who were alive and "already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts" when they are written.

Further, they can only obligate those "consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted either to express their consent or dissent in any formal manner." And, those who may authorize & be obligated to Constitutions have "no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children." ("No Treason: the Constitution of No Authority," the Lysander Spooner Reader, p. 71)

How else could the people agree to the State? "If they have done so, they can only have done so in only one of both of two ways, viz., by voting, and paying taxes." (ibid, p. 73)
Taxation might seem at first to indicate the consent of the governed since people seem to willingly pay the State to protect them. However, the Mafia has also claimed to "protect" people in exchange for payment. In fact, the "protection" money collected by the Mafia isn't willingly paid at all, but extorted by the Mafia from its victims. In fact, it isn't "protection" money at all, but extortion. Extortion is defined as "obtaining property from another by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." (Black's Law Dictionary, p. 302).
The Mafia's "protection" is neither freely offered nor freely accepted. Those who don't pay their "protection" money are threatened with harm to their lives, liberties, & properties.

The same thing goes for taxation. The State doesn't wait for anyone to request its "services," and, like the Mafia, its offers are ones that you can't refuse. Those who decline its offers are also threatened with harm to their life, liberty, or property.

Where the Mafia may firebomb the home or business of those who don't pay up, the State will rob, beat, imprison, and even kill those who refuse to pay their taxes because they reject the "services" the State has to offer.
Taxation may seem analogous to rent paid by a tenant to its landlord, but this analogy doesn't hold water, either. While legitimate landlords get their property by being the first to make use of it and mark it off or by getting it in trade or as a gift from someone who did, etc., the State doesn't get its territory that way.

The State gets its territory the same way as the Mafia: by violence, or the threat thereof. Thus, neither the State nor the Mafia are the legitimate owners of anything they get by means of their extortion.

Furthermore, this assumes that the State claims title to all the real estate within its territory, which isn't always the case.
In fact, land title was held "allodium" ("Land held absolutely in one's own right, and not of any lord or superior; land not subject to feudal duties or burdens.

An estate held by absolute ownership, without recognizing any superior to whom any duty is due on account thereof." - ibid, p. 39), or "fee simple absolute" ("A fee simple is an estate limited absolutely to a man and his heirs and assigns forever without limitation or condition. An absolute or fee-simple estate is one in which the owner is entitled to the entire property, with unconditional power of disposition during his life, and descending to his heirs and legal representatives upon his death intestate."

“An illegitimate owner cannot pass title” “You mean a thief owns what he stole?” (Plus most of the rest along those lines.)

So return the land you claim (if you’re really in Pennsylvania). Do I misremember that your Chain of theft goes back to George III of England? Do you not know where to find the current monarch of England?

“though if you're pansy enough”

“you were an ign'ant hillbilly”

Who is it that’s made the most accusations about ad hominems on this thread?

“Luckily, that more rational majority will resort to arbitration,”

You’re the one who keeps defaulting to violence, shooting and so forth because of definitions others have not agreed to.

“lack of a government implies that the world turns into the "Wild Wild West"”

Nonsense and once again an attribution to me of a position that I did not take. People can get along perfectly well without a government, in some circumstances at least.

“ it was also surprisingly peaceful and civilised.”

Because the people mutually agreed as to how to interact with each other. They had something like what I would call a social contract, something you will not acknowledge and I think you won’t do so because it means you don’t get to make all the rules and set all the terms to suit yourself and the heck with everybody else. (Can you spell “socielpath” ? Ign'ant hillbillies don’t know how to spell them there kinda werds.) By the way, anybody reading your posts on this thread, might conclude that in the Old West or any similar society you’d either straighten up or cause need for the “He needed Killing” defense.

“I make no rules, terms or conditions,…”

Who’s been posting in your name?

“You keep trying to apply the argument against social contracts, and use it against the existence of property rights themselves.”

I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement to that effect. You have no right to attribute that position to me. I am not trying to do what you write I’m trying to do. We can’t even get to an intelligent discussion of property rights because you can’t get over the delusion of grandeur that allows you to think things have to go your way and everybody else can go hang. You have shown me no foundation. You demonstrate to me no understanding. And IMEO I’d have to say your reading comprehension sucks.

There are a couple of problems with your argument. One is that rationality is not either-or, it exists in degrees. Some people are much better than others at thinking things through, at seeing the consequences of actions and policy. Suppose all the inhabitants of a country were, as you suggest, under the authority of a non-rational being. That is, this one being made every decision for everyone. If this being were more rational than everyone else, every inhabitant would be better off being ruled than if they made their own decisions.

Another problem with your argument is that, in the aggregate, people can be more rational than they are individually. An example of this is the so-called Delphi Effect in which the average opinion of experts is a better predictor than any single expert's opinion.

Now, those are pretty theoretical arguments and have issues, some easy to address and others hard. However, I claim that any social institution or theme that is as widely practiced in space and time as government has a net social benefit. The question is how to tune it to maximize that benefit.

You are redefining "parasite" to mean "someone who refuses under any circumstances to take anything that doesn't belong to him, nor to harm anyone else's person or property."

Not my assertion but instead your attribution to me.

The opposite of "parasite" is someone like yourself, a "productive, cooperative" member of society, who considers it his right to use roads paid for with money stolen from "the rich".

Again, not my assertion but instead your attribution to me.

Probability based on what? I know about all the statistics and tables and so forth but as to categorizing each of us relative to the other you only know enough about you to do so and maybe not that much. You’re figuring the probability based on the entire sample but I can’t see that enough of that bottom 50% participate in a forum like this to allow you to figure the probability you claim. Your sample is off.

In short, you are 85% likely to be a parasite leaching off me, and you're 99% certain to be a parasite leaching off the top 1% of income earners. But I'm a parasite. Can you lend me a Newspeak dictionary so I can keep up with you?

Why do you think that, in our society (it’s an assumption on my part that you believe in the existence of society) that being in the top 1% of income earners keeps you from being a parasite? It depends on the value (undefined term) provided in exchange for the income. Who provides more value, a teacher with ten years experience or a first year second string player in some professional sport? What’s the income of each?

If you’re that high up the income scale and you’re paying all your taxes I will say good for you. Especially considering your views as I recall them. Even if you’re not smart enough yourself to figure ways out of paying all of them you could hire somebody to do it for you.

I have to wonder what you do to earn such a high income but I won’t ask because thinking back on your posts I surmise it might be illegal. (By my terms of course, not yours.) It can’t be anything intellectual because what I see of your thinking has all the substance, composition and consistency of a fresh cow pie.

So return the land you claim (if you’re really in Pennsylvania).

To who? I can only return my plot of land to the rightful owner himself.

Who is it that’s made the most accusations about ad hominems on this thread?

You claim that your culture launches a blood feud to avenge one of your own when he died in the course of committing a crime. I'm sorry if you don't like the word "hillbilly", but that"s the only culture I know that behaves that way. I've known hillbillies when I went to grad school in Syracuse.

However, even if you feel personally insulted, none of that is "ad hominem". Every mention of the other guy, nor even every insult, is an "ad hominem argument". Apparently you don't know what one is.

You’re the one who keeps defaulting to violence, shooting and so forth because of definitions others have not agreed to.

For the record, you are saying that a man's property is not his, and you do not regard him as having the right to defend it. That's intellectually dishonest, since you do not so believe. Nevertheless, when I speak of "shooting", I speak only of my right to use deadly force in self-defense; if I personally choose to use other than deadly force, that's my prerogative. It's up to the property owner. Smart property owners will usually not use deadly force, contrary to your John-Wayne fantasies.

Because the people mutually agreed as to how to interact with each other. They had something like what I would call a social contract...

Strong claims. Naturally, you don't even try to prove them...

Who’s been posting in your name?

Self-defense is part of the fabric of the universe itself. I claim that apart from self-defense, which is itself an unalterable force of nature, there are no rules at all. You believe there are lots of rules. Oddly, you find my view to be the more restrictive.

I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement to that effect.

You're very repetitious. If you leap from a cliff, you'll fall down go boom. If you attack me, you will face the consequences. Two true facts that don't require your permission.

We can’t even get to an intelligent discussion of property rights because you can’t get over the delusion of grandeur that allows you to think things have to go your way and everybody else can go hang.

That was an example of ad hominem, if you're interested in learning how to spot it. However, it would be quite helpful if you tried to identify precisely what it is that I'm supposedly dictating to the universe. I mention that anyone you attack will defend himself and his property; other than that, I claim that nobody has any right to attack you, regardless of what you might say or do.

You, on the other hand, believe there are all sorts of rules which, unless I follow them, I'm subject to capture and incarceration, or worse. Which of us is dictatorial around here?

There are a couple of problems with your argument. One is that rationality is not either-or, it exists in degrees.

That statement is true as far as psychology; people are incapable of thinking in a purely rational manner. They're too recently descended from the trees; sometimes they still can't shake their need to bare their teeth and squabble over bananas and females.

As pertains to an argument, it either is or is not rational. There's no such thing as a "slightly rational" argument.

Suppose all the inhabitants of a country were, as you suggest, under the authority of a non-rational being.

In other words, pick any country in the world, and suppose that it's just exactly as it is today. Check.

That is, this one being made every decision for everyone.

Who said "every" decision? No dictator in the history of the universe did that, nor ever would.

If this being were more rational than everyone else, every inhabitant would be better off being ruled than if they made their own decisions.

Fair argument, but it rests on a false premise. Namely, that this "more rational" person's idea of "better" really is "better" for everyone. For example, any rational person would hate rap; therefore a "more rational" ruler would of course ban the nasty garbage. Unfortunately, that makes his rap-loving subjects miserable. In what sense are they therefore "better off"?

Wellness itself is not a rational concept. Vanilla makes me happy; chocolate, you. It is inherently impossible for any human to make better decisions for another than he can make for himself, precisely because each person's definition of "better off" is different, and nobody's is specially blessed by heaven.

Another problem with your argument is that, in the aggregate, people can be more rational than they are individually.

That doesn't make them better at achieving a non-rational goal, namely happiness. If everyone in the country (except you) carefully voted on every aspect of your life, we could not improve your happiness better than you could by being left alone.

However, I claim that any social institution or theme that is as widely practiced in space and time as government has a net social benefit.

Your task, should you choose to accept it, is to prove that.

There you go again assuming some agreement where there is none.

Now you're applying your false logic to the act of discussion itself. Words mean what we mean by them; in order to discourse, we must understand the definitions in use. That isn't a political exercise, and it isn't pointful to "vote" on what the words shall mean. It suffices if you know what I mean, and vice versa--and I've explained what I mean, more than once. You just keep forgetting.

You don't need logic to "conclude" an observation.

This is getting increasingly ridiculous. You need logic to conclude a conclusion. You claimed that my logic implied a certain conclusion, which it didn't. I'd be interested in seeing the chain of reasoning by which you arrived at that nonsensical "observation" of yours.

"Unfortunately, that "contract" isn't a contract."
“I make no rules, terms or conditions,…”
?????????????

I sympathize with your confusion. Fact is, you're trying to foist a "contract" on me against my will, that includes things like taxes, judges, juries, third-party regulation of my personal property, police enforcing the bogus contract, and what have you. I foist nothing whatsoever on anyone. I merely point out that nobody has a right to impose their will on another's person or property. You are free to try and prove otherwise, but so far you haven't tried.

Everything else I have said proceeds logically from the observation that nobody has the right to push anyone else around.

Not my assertion but instead your attribution to me.

You called me a parasite; my position is that it is unethical "under any circumstances to take anything that doesn't belong to him, nor to harm anyone else's person or property." So that must be your definition of a parasite.

This sentence is more incoherent than usual. Probability based on US census data. Any randomly selected person is 80-85% likely to earn less than I do. Thus the chance that he pays less tax than I do is roughly the same. On the other hand, roughly 3/4 of doctoral degree holders earn more than I do--most of them being MDs, whereas I'm a lowly mathematician.

I can’t see that enough of that bottom 50% participate in a forum like this to allow you to figure the probability you claim. Your sample is off.

I'll be happy to teach you a lesson in conditional probability if desired. Since no demographic information about Freepers is available, I have no choice but to use the conditional probability based on the assumption that nothing is known about Freepers. However, the sample is quite probably not as far off as you claim. I doubt welfare queens frequent this site, but people from all walks of life do, including high-paid lawyers and doctors that make much more than me, and other folks making minimum wage or living on a pension. It's doubtful that we're significantly richer than the rest of the population.

Why do you think that, in our society (it’s an assumption on my part that you believe in the existence of society) that being in the top 1% of income earners keeps you from being a parasite?

The calculation is impossible, since costs are not allocated at all proportionally to consumption of government "services". Note, though, that I didn't call the one-percenters "non-parasites"; I called everyone in the 99% a "parasite". That's true, broadly speaking; there's no question that the other 99% aren't paying a proportional share. Some hillbillies might not be parasites, in that they might consume less government "service" than they pay for in taxes on their moonshine.

If you’re that high up the income scale and you’re paying all your taxes I will say good for you.

I make much less than many people on this forum; no need to get all congratulatory. As for "all my taxes", I'm not sure what you mean. I pay my tax bill, and it's probably higher than yours. However, it's fundamentally impossible to know what "my share" of the national budget is. Even if we pretend that I wouldn't dispute parts of the budget--like farm subsidies to Rupert Murdoch--the fact is that "my share" of those and other budget items cannot be calculated. If it could be, then the government would be able to bill us each "our fair share", but it's impossible. No number of accountants, all with infinite IQs, could possibly determine that figure.

I have to wonder what you do to earn such a high income but I won’t ask because thinking back on your posts I surmise it might be illegal.

You are apparently over-estimating my income. You'd be surprised how little the 80th percentile earns, just as you'd probably be surprised how much the 50th percentile earns.

It can’t be anything intellectual because what I see of your thinking has all the substance, composition and consistency of a fresh cow pie.

More ad hominem, if you're collecting samples. False, too, if you're interested. I've been privileged to do some very interesting research.

There's no such thing as a "slightly rational" argument.

Of course there is. We are bombarded with them daily. Haven't you been reading the DP/ports threads? I'd probably go further and say that there's never been and never will be a significant argument that's purely rational. Eventually the choice must be made on a value basis and values aren't rational.

I'll ignore the nits you picked and get to a real issue, is government socially valuable? I think the evidence for it is compelling but of course one can't know for sure. It may be that, perhaps compelled by an evolved tendency toward hierarchy, people throughout recorded history have chosen to form governments even though it is bad for them but I doubt that. People aren't that stupid (well except maybe liberals). One of the greatest social inventions, rule of law, requires government. People cannot effectively organize for their common defense against an organized enemy without government. Simply having to debate policy rather than acting without thinking is valuable.

But of course government is not uniformly positive and, as I said, our goal should be to shape the principles of government to increase its social benefit.

Of course there is. We are bombarded with them daily.

To see what I'm saying, put "valid" for "rational". A flawed argument is no good, period; there's no such thing as a "mostly good" argument.

I'd probably go further and say that there's never been and never will be a significant argument that's purely rational.

The entire field of Mathematics.

Eventually the choice must be made on a value basis and values aren't rational.

That's true, but one's decision to go with paper or plastic is not an "argument".

is government socially valuable? I think the evidence for it is compelling but of course one can't know for sure.

Are you justified pushing other people around on a hunch?

It may be that, perhaps compelled by an evolved tendency toward hierarchy, people throughout recorded history have chosen to form governments even though it is bad for them but I doubt that.

You doubt it, but it happens to be precisely true. Observe that monkeys have hierarchy. It's hardly a human invention. A non-sentient being needs a herd instinct to survive, because cooperation is indeed necessary for survival.

One of the greatest social inventions, rule of law, requires government.

I'd be interested to see your proof of that.

People cannot effectively organize for their common defense against an organized enemy without government.

I'd also like to see the proof of that.

Simply having to debate policy rather than acting without thinking is valuable.

Without government, humans lose the power of reason and speech?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Why Statists Always Get it Wrong

by Per Bylund