You didn't seem to like the idea that "The Government" had a "monopoly" on use of arms.
I have a monopoly on the use of both my arms.
No I was talking about the governments legal monopoly on the use of violence. No one actually disputes that this is what government is.
Yes. There is no way in seven hells that a bunch of disorganised, uncoordinated private mercenary armies could have stood up to the organised, centrally controlled, national armies. That genie was let out of the bottle already and no amount of wishing and philosophating is going to make it otherwise- a country needs a national army to survive.
Ever heard of Castro?
At any rate, I'm not talking about private vs. public armies. That isn't the point. You seemed to be suggesting that private armies lead to massacres of innocent people...I point to World War II and you were totally pwned.
Historically, no. They simply becaome tools to enforce the will of their employers- at the expense of anyone that cannot afford their own. Look into Italy in the 14-16th centuries.
And public armies never serve the will of their master? Even if it is against the public good? Good thing government is so benevolent otherwise I’d think we’d have governments massacring people all over the place.
...as opposed to doing without? Fine for luxuries, not so good for food or heating oil.
Bull. John D. Rockefellar was selling oil for 8 cents a gallon, cheaper than anyone on the planet. As for food, mechanization of agriculture created surplus labor for industry (boohoo cries the statist) but resulted in greater yields aka more food. Food prices dropped and continued to drop even as government subsidized agriculture and created minimum price supports and tariffs to keep out imports.
That were not available elsewhere, and screw you if you don't like how we treat you, there's four others to take your place, and a midnight visit and a shallow grave if you get too mouthy about it.
Wait an Fing minute…
Here we have a situation where you VOLUNTARILY take a job and leaving isn’t a fair option? Whereas, you do NOT voluntarily agree to be a member of society, but leaving society is a fair option? Give me a break.
At prices that eat up any chance you have to put aside savings, get out from under the companies thumb, send your kids to school, or do anything but work yourself to death to line the board's pockets.
So to encourage savings, we the mighty and all knowing government will take 1/3rd of your income and invest it in paper IOUs…thanks but BULL. Prices were falling, wages were rising, and standards of living were increasing.
Life wasn’t perfect but it was getting better.
"Higher" only because there were no "alternative jobs".
Not true at all, but even if it were, you aren’t forced to take the job.
Which is why so many of them
fought and died to get basic safety standards in place, a reasonable workday, freedom from "company stores", fair wages, and the right to even air their greivances.
They also fought and died to screw over workers less skilled than themselves. Other than government unions there hasn’t really been many successful unions representing low-skilled labor.
Union tactics are to increase labor costs to bar competition from low skilled workers to secure higher pay for higher skilled workers. The result is a nice screwing from wealthier people to the poorer people.
Don’t butt kiss unions, they’ve done some pretty nasty things.
Looking at history through rose-tinted lenses- or worse, being completely ignorant of history- is no argument for your unrealistic, utopian views.
I’ve never offered a utopian view. Not once. I’m offering a realistic, thoughtful, and deeper understanding of the world than you. You’re the one who thinks government, properly administered, can solve all the problems of the world.
