3 ms·

I also don't need to build and program my own computer because Apple has built one I like at a price I'm willing to pay. They're part of the "vastly interdepend

I also don't need to build and program my own computer because Apple has built one I like at a price I'm willing to pay. They're part of the "vastly interdependent society", too. If the scope and cost of government makes it more difficult or expensive for Apple to produce that computer, then my ideas become that much harder to execute as well. It's a tradeoff, and claiming "you wouldn't be able to do it without government!" doesn't provide any help in determining whether how we're making that tradeoff today is right. You wouldn't be able to do it without other entrepreneurs as well.

rayiner 14y ago
Nobody is arguing you can do it without other entrepreneurs. The objection is to the idea "I built that" (used in the same sense as a house I built myself with wood I cut from my own trees using a hatchet I made from sticks and rocks myself).
- rbanffy 14y ago
  You are neglecting all the effort the trees put into growing big enough, since probably before you were born, so you could readily use them.
  - lupatus 14y ago
    Trees in a forest aren't considered subsidized infrastructure. They are natural resources. You're struggling now.
- twoodfin 14y ago
  Nobody ever used "I built that" in that silly ex nihilo sense. It's sophistry to claim otherwise. They used "built" in the sense of being a primary, essential contributor. "Steve Jobs built (and then re-built) Apple" is a completely accurate thing to say. Do you really want to claim it's false?
  - rayiner 14y ago
    > They used "built" in the sense of being a primary, essential contributor. Do they really? What I hear is them complaining that every cent they are taxed is the government taking "their money". If they were willing to acknowledge that they are the primary, not sole, contributor, wouldn't they acknowledge that some part of their income is not an imposition by the government, but rather a collection of something the government is entitled to in the first place by virtue of its contribution?

rayiner 14y ago

Nobody is arguing you can do it without other entrepreneurs. The objection is to the idea "I built that" (used in the same sense as a house I built myself with wood I cut from my own trees using a hatchet I made from sticks and rocks myself).

rbanffy 14y ago
You are neglecting all the effort the trees put into growing big enough, since probably before you were born, so you could readily use them.
- lupatus 14y ago
  Trees in a forest aren't considered subsidized infrastructure. They are natural resources. You're struggling now.
twoodfin 14y ago
Nobody ever used "I built that" in that silly ex nihilo sense. It's sophistry to claim otherwise. They used "built" in the sense of being a primary, essential contributor. "Steve Jobs built (and then re-built) Apple" is a completely accurate thing to say. Do you really want to claim it's false?
- rayiner 14y ago
  > They used "built" in the sense of being a primary, essential contributor. Do they really? What I hear is them complaining that every cent they are taxed is the government taking "their money". If they were willing to acknowledge that they are the primary, not sole, contributor, wouldn't they acknowledge that some part of their income is not an imposition by the government, but rather a collection of something the government is entitled to in the first place by virtue of its contribution?