That’s not exactly how representative government works.
I. Kahan
41

You can say that, but if so, the same would apply to pointing guns at people who disagree with your property rules.

If you can’t understand the difference between pointing a gun at me and ordering me to donate to your favorite charity, and me pointing a gun back and telling you to buzz off, then you probably shouldn’t be critiquing the NAP.

It’s far more nuanced than 51% vs. 49%.

I’m sorry. If 51% of enfranchised citizens elect the representatives who then decide to take all your property and leave you destitute on the street, that’s okay, right?

something isn’t the right thing because the government did it, it’s the right thing because it helps people.

You literally just said that property rights are determined by most of the citizens defining them the same way. However they make their opinion known, “Because it helps people” is not the same thing.

If you can’t even lay down a loosely consistent framework for how property rights should be determined, why should anybody listen to you? Your definition of “helps people” could just as easily define them as the oppressors and take their stuff, along with the 1%’s.

That’s ridiculous, and you know it. In particular, financial and environmental regulations were utterly dismantled. Tax rates were also slashed.

The Federal Register has quadrupled in size since 1970 (interestingly, 1973 is when we lost the right to private prosecution, which I think is a huge reason for this).

The EPA employs roughly double what it used to in 1975, while the general population has only grown by about 50% since then.

The financial sector is one of the most regulated industries in America, and this whole deregulation schtick is a fraud.

Furthermore, my main point is that government has exploded in size since the 1970’s, and even since the Reagan administration. It is in this environment that you want to blame general trends on the free market in America, when whatever freedom we’ve has been continuously diminishing.

What is shameful is the dogmatic adherence to your bizarre property rules even when they hurt people immensely.

I just want you to reflect on what you just said. You just said that, under certain circumstance, stealing from the innocent is okay, because it “helps people.”

Libertarian property rules are not “bizarre.” Had they been respected, the Trail of Tears would never have happened, blacks would never have been slaves, the Japanese would never have been moved into concentration camps, Nigerian villagers would never get driven from their homes so BP can put in a few oil pumps, and the banks would not have been able to extort American taxpayers for trillions in bailouts after refusing to so much as even look at the houses they were investing in before 2008.

Oh, and a lot people wouldn’t get 40-50% of their income taken (after you factor in the employer side of payroll taxes) by the government. I’m very much in the middle class, and that’s how much I pay.

Sure, if Bill Gates managed to make Microsoft without massive government subsidies and abusing the patent system, he would have been able to keep his billions. That would have come after providing enough value to people for them to voluntarily GIVE him billions, though. He would first have to make hundreds of millions of people better off by billions of dollars.

Like what you read? Give Fred a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.