Quote:
Originally Posted by galleryseek
Yeah, because "the government" exists. /s.
So it's easy to respond to your very common, very weak statist consequentialist argument. In the absence of "government", or rather a certain group of individuals we give special privileges to, people would continue to exist and solve social problems. It's people who build roads, it's people who fight fires, people who provide security. In a voluntary society, they would continue to exist only in a much better and efficient system; because it's based on a free market which lives and dies by competition.
fit.
|
I live where there are volunteer fire departments and "government run' fire departments. Difference is night & day. I'll gladly pay for professionals here in under 2 minutes in a fully equipped pumper as opposed to guys, who might be 30 minutes away at their job, trying to race through traffic in their pickup trucks.
The FDA sucks but it's better than a few volunteers trying to make sure my food is safe. Competition sure didn't give us clean food. Read The Jungle.
With out regulation, just competition every bank was failing in the early '30's. Took FDR, a Bank Holiday and the creation of the FDIC & the Glass-Steagall Act to make sure our deposits were safe.
My local government supplies my water & electricity at a rate 1/2 of my neighbors who are supplied by for profit companies. And these amazing part is, I know my local government run utility is run by guys robbing us blind. But they are still cheaper.
Face it, life is more complicated than the days of the Founding Fathers and "The Constitution." Somebody has to regulate the radio/tv/cell airways or there would be total chaos. Same with so many things Franklin & Jefferson never would have dreamed of. The more complicated life gets, unfortunately the more complex government will get. And with that comes more proof that we're stuck with an ever growing example of The Peter Principle.