Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Senator Bedfellow
...no apparent tangible benefits over the current system...

Um, that's true--in much the same way that letting Muslim women pick their own husbands has "no apparent tangible benefits over the current system" of arranged marriages. I mean, if you ignore the fact that women today are raped and beaten, it really boils down to the same thing: either way, they get married to some guy...

Lest you think I'm exaggerating, the analogy is exact. Except for the fact that people are billed for things they neither want nor need, and then jailed if they refuse to pay, both systems are the same. Your argument is exactly the one I would make to defend a NYC protection racket: the cosa nostra provides better protection than the police. There's no apparent tangible benefit from eliminating the mob.

194 posted on 02/20/2006 5:35:50 PM PST by Shalom Israel (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies ]


To: Shalom Israel
Except for the fact that people are billed for things they neither want nor need, and then jailed if they refuse to pay, both systems are the same.

LOL. So then, if nobody actually wants or needs armies, then armies will simply cease to exist under your proposed system, right? If nobody actually wants or needs courts, then courts will cease to exist. If nobody wants or needs roads, roads will cease to exist. And so forth.

Is there anyone here who actually believes that to be the case? Do you? I rather doubt it, considering how much effort you've put into persuading people that private defense systems are not necessarily inferior to public provisions for defense. So who is this mysterious person or persons out there, the one who neither wants nor needs armies to defend him and his property, and yet gets billed for it anyway? You? Are you the one who thinks that defense is unnecessary? Is there anyone at all, other than the hopelessly naive, who thinks that armies are unnecessary?

But, of course, there is no such person, is there? Even you recognize the need for defense, I think. Which says to me that you are, in fact, arguing against national defense on behalf of people who don't really exist - the hypothetical people who don't need armies to defend them against other armies. Or you're arguing on behalf of those silly enough to actually believe such a thing, even though you yourself don't happen to be quite that silly. I think that you want armies and courts and roads and what-have-you as much as any sensible person, but you apparently, for whatever reason, don't want to have to pay for them. What can I say? Welcome aboard, fellow free-rider ;)

206 posted on 02/20/2006 6:10:41 PM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson