3 ms·

With the assumption that the State is the best ward for your money. Do you fully trust the State to be willing and able to stamp out inequality?

• frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Why must we 'fully' trust the state? We just have to trust it more than the markets.
  • ams6110 9y ago
    States have killed many more people than markets have.
    • chipotle_coyote 9y ago
      This strikes me as too facile to be particularly useful. First, it's much easier to get a rough idea of how many people states have killed than markets, to be sure. But many wars are fought and nations are conquered (and, for that matter, created) for market-driven reasons: oil, tea, diamonds, slaves, to name a few egregious examples off the top of my head. Millions of people have died throughout history that would not have if states were not acting to protect, expand, or create markets. Second, while it's probably harder to get a rough idea of how many people states have saved than markets have, the number is not inconsequential. I certainly wouldn't suggest states are forces for unrequited good--there's copious valid criticism of them across the political spectrum--but I would suggest that they're hardly forces for unrequited evil, either.
  • mnglkhn2 9y ago
    We first need to know that the current taxes are fully spent on the right things and that the "pork" spending is not actually larger than the amount needed to satisfy the needs expressed by the current movement.