"*Successful* entrepreneurs aren't the concern. They have already made money and already created jobs. In economic terms, they are kind of a sunk cost. What matters are the entrepreneur wanna-bes. These are the people who will create new jobs. They aren't yet rich, so they don't show up among...
It matters more so for the wanna-be rich people. I'll quote my local free-market economics professor:
"These are the people who will create new jobs. They aren't yet rich, so they don't show up among the "rich entrepreneurs" who say that taxes don't matter. They also haven't yet taken on the...
No, you didn't. You simply begged the question it could not be done without the state and said there would be "abuse" and bitched and moaned... but never proved anything!
The burden of proof, in an argument about political philosophy or politics, is on the person who is making positive assertions such as the necessity of the state, the legitimacy of the state, the exclusive ability of the state to provide certain services. That's simply a matter of basic logic...
Except you haven't posted anything that hasn't been refuted. You haven't proved that a monopoly over territory is necessary. Polycentric law has existed for thousands of years.
Your inculcation via the state-run brainwashing centers (schools) has left you incapable of grasping that it is impossible for people to sign the unborn into contracts.
Yes, you are crying. Your are crying that I've dispelled your equivocation fallacy. But I know you'll whine and bitch and moan and say that I'm snipping because I can't deal blah blah blah whine whine whine. Stop being so cowardly as to whine.
So what. The constitution has no authority. The...