“Breaking Bad” wouldn’t exist in a free society (at least in reality)

// //]]> http://NonAggression-Apparel.Com http://VoluntaryVirtues.com Please “Like” the facebook page “Statism Is Slavery” http://www.facebook.com/statismmakesyouaslave
// //]]>

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One Response to “Breaking Bad” wouldn’t exist in a free society (at least in reality)

  1. Patrizia October 27, 2015 at 1:52 am #

    The problem is that it’s trkciy to define what what would make for a truly representative government. You say equal, but do you mean that as in egalitarian or as in fair? These are very different.In America, we have something approaching an egalitarian representation, where everyone over a certain age who is registered as a citizen gets a vote. If you think of government’s role as to tax citizens so as to provide for public goods (an army against the nazi’s as in your example) or to redistribute wealth, then that’s far from fair. 40% of Americans are net receivers of money from the government, they get back more from social programs than they pay into through taxes. And they have 40% of the voting power. The top 10% of wage earners have 33% of the income, and pay 45% of the taxes. And yet they only have 10% of the voting power. If a group brings 45% of the pie and only has a 10% say in what happens to it, that just leads to moral hazard and is simply unfair, unjust.I wouldn’t claim to be a libertarian, but I’d replace your definition with: A libertarian believes that in the eyes of government, no one should be treated differently from any other, regardless of race, religion, socioeconomic status, sex or sexual preference, health, age, etc. The government’s role isn’t to redistribute wealth among people to reduce suffering, but to see that when government has to intervene in private life to enforce laws and contracts, it doesn’t give unfair advantage to any.

Leave a Reply