Donau wrote:You probable believe that your income comes from the sky or something
I know exactly where my income comes from. It comes from my employer which, in turn, gets it from our customers who willingly pay us for the services we provide.
When you make money ,whehter you are employer or worker, you are using some infrastructure ( and I am not talking about roads ) that is not yours or somebody else ... is ours
Since you are not talking about roads, it would help if you explained yourself. And what makes it yours. It is true that I enjoy the benefits of living within a law-abiding society in which my person and property are tolerably safe. Without tolerable safety in one's property, there is indeed no market.
Some aspects of this environment - the effective deterrence of property crime for example - is clearly not free and is worth paying for. Much like roads, I'd be delighted to pay for the crime deterrence I enjoy.
But just because I benefit from some aspects of living within a community doesn't automatically mean that the community is owed an arbitrary fraction of my income. Certainly not when that fraction is charged irrespective of one's use of the community's facilities.
For the purpose of this discussion, I am going to assume that we need and want government to protect our property rights. (If you want to discuss why it isn't really necessary, we can start a separate thread in the Anarchy forum).
But assuming government does provide adequate protection of property rights, all the other useful services that government clearly provides (food quality assurance, roads and many others) can be provided more efficiently by the free market.
Genghis Khan wrote:You think it's all yours. Who told you that? What in the world would make you think you're entitled to a 100% of it?
My employer would like to give it all to me. The government forces my employer to take some away. Before I was paid, the money belonged 100% to my employer, since he received it from happy customers in exchange for services rendered.
If I am not 100% entitled to the money I earned, somebody ought to be able to present a better claim for it.
Not true. Around half of the states allow it.
The FDA (i.e. the Federal Government) prohibits it, whether a particular state allows it or not.
To be clear, there are always rationalisations for government prohibitions, though in some cases exceptionally weak ones. It is easy to rationalise. But freedom rationalised away is still freedom lost.
You cannot be required to hire a woman for a specific job, unless it's a job that involves female body parts.
As a small employer, I am not. But as a large employer, I have to be very careful about my hiring patterns, or risk an expensive regulatory process.
But you are allowed to employ them. I don't see how your freedom is being infringed upon.
If I told you that you are allowed to read certain books, provided only that you provide the government with three authorisations by the local police chief, head of the local library and your priest, all certifying that the required reading won't be harmful to you, would you consider that to be a state of freedom?
Having to jump through bureaucratic hoops reduces freedom.
Donau wrote:Abolitionists were not against roads they had a problem with the way the roads were made but here Eran not just sees them unnecessary , he denies their existence .
Of course I don't. I deny the necessity of having them built by government. That's completely different, don't you agree?
Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.