Tudamorf wrote:It's simple. Anarchists want all of the benefits of a civilized society without having to contribute anything themselves.
Anarchists/libertarians are among the worst type of hypocrites.
Well, we all must abide by a Social Contract.
When that contract is breached by one party, then well. We don't then have a contract.
You are telling me that even when there is a breach of contract, that the individual must still abide by it.
That does not make any sense, Tudamorf.
Libertarians are fine with pay for what you get. If you receive something, you should pay for it.
There is nothing hypocritical about that.
I understand that you live in SF, and being in SF, that you receive a lot more of the benefits from the rest of society, ie the rest of California, than normal, more than the rest of us. And that skews your perception. I mean, for example, we are, us Californians, are paying for your brand new bridge. And will have to pay again at the toll booth, to come to your city, after it's built. If the people of SF and Oakland only had to pay for the new bridge, it would never be built. You are relying on the production of other people, us and me, to make that happen. You benefit from taking our productivity, without our say in the matter. The bridge benefits you in SF and Oakland only. And I know that you are absolutely cool with that. I would drive around, if I had to, and didn't have to pay for your bridge, if I wanted to come to your city.
The rest of us, who are paying for your new bridge, receive NOTHING from your new bridge. But we are paying for it. You in SF benefit, and are not paying your fair share. You are all leeches on the rest of society. Taking something without paying for it. That is just stealing. And Libertarians do have a problem with stealing.
If you all paid for your own bridge, then there would be no problems. But like I said, then there would be no bridge.
Pay for your own god damned bridge, leech.