All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 4, 2014 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
32:37
2575 Public Sector Beats Private Sector - Rebutted!

Is the public sector "better" than the public sector? Stefan Molyneux responds to the assertion that "public beats private in almost every way".

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, it's Stefan Molyneux from Feed the Main Radio.
You know what's great?
I love that so many articles are coming out these days trying to put an extreme San Quentin-style butthurt on libertarianism.
That is just tasty, delicious Captain Crunch of statist innards because, you know, you only bomb near the target.
And you only shoot at the planes that are going to bomb at you.
So the fact that libertarianism is posing a threat to entrenched interests is why they're calling out the little chihuahua media yap yap attack dogs to start to drool on it.
And it's wonderful.
So, you know, that thing, first they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
So we're at the fighting stage, which is, yay!
Fantastic.
So, this is from nationofchange.org.
You know, guys, think bigger.
Think of Nation of Bills.
Anyway, so this is an article entitled Public Beats Private.
Six Reasons Why.
I don't think it's army porn.
And let's have a look at the first sentence, shall we?
I've not read the article yet, so we're going to go through it together.
Private systems are focused on making profits for a few well positioned people.
That's not true.
That's not even close to true.
That is a complete amount of profit.
Profit is not something that is made by the capitalist.
Profit is made by all participants in an economic transaction, or at least it's expected to be made.
So if you can't afford to buy a lathe, let's say, but you want to make a bunch of lathe-y things like screwdrivers or something, then you can try and carve them by hand, but it's not really going to work very well.
You cannot work for five years or ten years to stay up to buy a lathe, at which point you're dead of starvation if you don't have charity.
So if you go to work in a factory where the lathe has already been bought by someone else who saved money or made money or inherited money, which just means either your people saved or made money, then you're going to go and make your screwdrivers with a lathe, at which point you will be able to produce, I don't know, 100 screwdrivers a day as opposed to one a week at which point you will be able to produce, I don't know, 100 screwdrivers a day So you're going to profit from that.
So if you work without a factory, you'll make $2 a day.
If you work with a factory, you'll make $200 a day.
Oh, look, isn't that great?
$198?
Profit!
So the idea that profit is only made by corporations and that profit is not made by the workers is entirely false.
Profit is when your returns exceed your investments in some sustainable manner, and therefore you are profiting.
So, anyway.
Public systems, when sufficiently supported by taxes, work for everyone in a generally equitable manner.
You know you're dealing with someone who's completely enmeshed in propaganda when they make massive, dare I say, You know you're dealing with someone who's completely enmeshed in propaganda when they make massive, dare I say, bold assertions with no evidence whatsoever.
Then you just know that they're completely enmeshed in propaganda.
They're still in the matrix and you're probably going to have to give them the red pill not orally.
So when somebody says public systems work for everyone in a generally equitable manner.
Oh, right.
Like those government schools where all the really decent schools are equally spread throughout rich and poor neighborhoods.
The suburbs have good schools, and the inner cities have good schools and all that.
Yes, that's right.
Public systems work in a generally equitable manner.
What about the military-industrial complex?
Do you get a lot of $500 hammers that you can build a Department of Defense for, or does that tend to be...
Pretty much for lobbyists and giant corporations.
Wait, wait.
Congress.
The opposite of progress is Congress.
Congress, do you get a lot of capacity to help rewrite legislation to favor your particular business, occupation, or industry?
No.
See, Congress is a publicly funded system that does not work in a way that is generally equitable to everyone.
So anyway, these are just off the top of my head.
The following are six specific reasons why privatization simply Doesn't work.
The profit motive moves most of the money to the top.
The federal Medicare administrator made $170,000 in 2010.
The president of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas made over 10 times as much in 2012.
Stephen J. Hemsley, the CEO of UnitedHealth Group, made almost 300 times as much in one year, $48 million, most of it from company stock.
In part because of such inequities in compensation, our private healthcare system is the most expensive system in the developed world.
No.
The reason why healthcare is so expensive in the United States is that the United States, in conjunction with the doctors and the pharmaceutical companies and the hospitals and the nurses, all restrict entry to the field to people who have to take an insane amount of useless school in order to do something like turn and cough.
Or, oh, can you pee into this so I can send it to a lab to find out if you have a UTI? That's why this is all nonsense.
About 100 years ago, I've got an article on my feed written by Rod Long, the famous porn star note.
No, sorry, the name always confuses me.
I think he's a professor at Auburn University.
Well, he points out that 100 years ago, there was a massive crisis in healthcare, which was that healthcare was far too cheap, and doctors were really frustrated that they weren't able to make as much money as the ministers of God in the secular field felt that they deserved, and therefore they began to lobby the government to restrict entry and to give them the sole power to give out medicine, which was granted to them after the Second World War by an act of Congress.
And so...
The people in the free market said, well, this free market isn't paying us as much as we want, so we're going to start making sure that everyone has to be licensed.
As soon as you hear licensed, all you need to know is that it's rent-seeking.
The demand for licensure and safety is never driven by the consumer.
Never driven by the consumer.
It's always and forever driven by people who want to raise barriers to entry to other people who can compete with them so that they can charge more.
And that process has continued and continued and continued.
And people always say that people are paid a certain amount, and that's not a rational way to look at it.
It's pure demagoguery to say, well, this guy's paid 300 times as much.
He's worth 300 times as much.
If he wasn't worth 300 times as much, he wouldn't be paid 300 times as much in a free market.
It's like saying, well, one of the faces in the crowd over Brad Pitt's shoulder was only paid $100, whereas Brad Pitt gets paid $10 million a movie.
So Brad Pitt is thousands and thousands of times paid more.
It's not.
Brad Pitt is worth more.
The face in the background is interchangeable.
Brad Pitt brings a unique charisma, look, talent, and ability to his roles.
So Brad Pitt is just worth a lot more.
I mean, pay is not arbitrary.
I mean, if you think pay is arbitrary, just go and ask your boss to be paid 100 times more, 300 times more.
He'll basically say, I'm sorry, you're not worth it.
In other words, if you can't produce enough to justify the cost of your salary, then you're losing money for the company and you have to either lower your salary or work somewhere else.
So they're worth 300 times more according to the market.
Now, you may say, well, I don't think that they're worth 300 times more.
But what does your opinion have to do with it?
That's like saying, I don't think Brad Pitt should get paid $10 million or $20 million a movie.
So what?
What does your opinion have to do with it?
I mean, it's like saying, I don't think that this couple over in Bangladesh are really that great for each other.
They probably shouldn't get married.
Well, okay, you can spend your whole life having opinions about things that you can't really change, but what a waste of time that is.
The point isn't whether you think Brad Pitt is worth $10 million a movie.
The point is whether the people who are hiring Brad Pitt Think that he's worth that much.
And trust me, the people who are paying Brad Pitt ten million dollars a movie, they know their shit, man.
I mean, they've done a hell of a lot of research into figuring out whether he's worth that, and trust me, they've looked at cheaper alternatives.
It's just that they have found that there's nothing more expensive than going cheap, right?
So, the people who are actually paying Brad Pitt $10 million, they have at least 10 million reasons as to why they shouldn't be doing that, but they believe it's a worthwhile investment, and they know a hell of a lot more about his value than you do.
So, looking from afar and saying, well, this guy's paid too much!
I mean...
It's like seeing a guy who's 5'11 on an NBA court and saying, well, that guy is just too short.
What the hell?
I mean, the guys who hired him and paying him, they know his value.
They may make mistakes.
I mean, I'm sure some of Brad Pitt's movies, Cry Baby, have sucked and lost money, but in general, he's a pretty sure bet.
And he opens a film, which means people will come to see it just because it's Brad Pitt.
The price of common surgeries is anywhere from three to ten times higher in the U.S. than in Great Britain, Canada, France, or Germany.
Well, we don't know what the price is of a common surgery in any of those countries because they have socialized healthcare.
Particularly in Canada, it's illegal for me to go and pay for surgery.
I got surgery down on my neck.
I had to fly down to the United States because I was told it was going to be a several-month wait at least in Canada, and so I declined.
To sit with a potentially cancerous tumor in my neck and I had to fly down to the United States and I had to pay for the surgery there.
So we know what the price is in the United States, except it's artificially higher in the United States because a lot of people are going down there or coming there from overseas who can't get the joys of socialist medicine is great in theory, but you just can't get there in practice.
It took me over a year to be diagnosed.
It was going to take me months more to have surgery.
And thank heavens I did go down to the United States and have that lump removed because it turned out to be cancerous.
So good for me.
If I'd waited for the socialist medicine, you might be staring at a pretty empty and quiet white screen right now.
So we don't know how much surgery costs in Canada because there's no market.
Price is a function of freely chosen voluntary arrangements.
When the system is coerced through the central power of the state, we don't know how much it is.
Medicare, on the other hand, which is largely without the profit motive and the competing sources of billing, is efficiently run for all eligible Americans.
How do you know?
How do you know it's efficiently run?
You don't.
When there's no price, you don't know whether it's efficiently run or not.
According to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance and other sources, medical administrative costs are much higher for private insurance than for Medicare.
Of course they are.
Of course they are.
Because Private insurance companies are responsible for keeping costs low.
They're responsible for ferreting out fraud.
And they are responsible for competing with other private.
So they have to have more paperwork.
Also, I wonder the degree to which private insurance companies have to submit paperwork to the government, which Medicare doesn't.
Does Medicare have to submit corporate tax returns?
Does it have to file a wide variety of paperwork that is not required by Medicare?
You've got to make sure you compare apples to apples, guys.
Kind of important.
And also...
The medical outcomes for people on Medicare are indistinguishable from those who have no insurance whatsoever, so hard to know what you mean by efficiency.
But the privatizers keep encroaching on the public sector.
Ooh, here we come, walking down the street.
Our government reimburses the CEOs of private contractors at a rate approximately double what we pay the president.
Overall, we pay the corporate bosses over $7 billion a year.
Again, it's the government, so who knows?
What the value is or what the price is.
Certainly the government doesn't care.
It's not their money.
The CEOs are happy to get whatever money they can get their hands on, like most people.
Many Americans don't realize that the privatization of Social Security and Medicare would transfer much of our money to yet another group of CEOs.
Well, Social Security is going to be privatized and Medicare is going to be privatized because they can't possibly be sustained.
I mean, eventually a plane has to land.
Hopefully we land it gently, but it's going to land.
It can't stay up there forever.
It's going to run out of gas.
So privatization of Social Security is like saying, eventually this plane's going to have to, oh, we'll just keep this plane going on forever and ever and ever.
We never have to refuel it.
I mean, it's mad.
It can't possibly be sustained.
It's completely out of money.
The United States government has 70, 80, 90 trillion dollars worth of unfunded liabilities on a 14 to 15 trillion dollar GDP. I mean, you can make all the noise that you want.
I really think in the battle between math and fantasy, I'm going to put my money on the numbers.
Privatization serves people with money.
The public sector serves everyone.
A good example is the US Postal Service, which is legally required to serve every home in the country.
FedEx and UPS can't serve unprofitable locations, yet the USPS is cheaper for small packages.
Of course it's cheaper for small packages.
Number one, My God, can these people do like a tiny shred of research?
You're actually not allowed to charge, if you're a private carrier, you're not allowed to charge what the USPS charges.
Because otherwise, nobody would use USPS. It sucks!
So I think that's kind of important to figure that out.
The other thing, too, is it's completely unfair to cost the same amount to send a package to a remote location than it is to an urban location.
The reason being that it's much cheaper to rent a house or buy a house in the middle of nowhere than it is in downtown Manhattan.
Or you can't even get a house these days in a condo or whatever, two square feet of hamster cage, whatever it is.
And so for all the people who are saving all this massive amounts of money on their housing costs, why should the people in the city who have to pay like ten times the housing costs subsidize packages for people out in the country?
It makes no sense at all.
It's completely unfair.
So that's another reason.
USPS is so inexpensive that FedEx actually uses the US Post Office throughout 30% of its ground shipments.
Yeah, of course.
At least the last time I checked, maybe it's changed, but they're allowed to charge less.
The other thing, too, is that the USPS is inexpensive because it's massively in debt, catastrophically in debt.
So, if you don't do that kind of math, how can you be taken seriously?
Yes, things are cheaper if you subsidize them with debt.
I mean, that's literally like saying, I can't believe that a Lexus costs only $600 or $700 a month, like $700, without recognizing that you're going into debt on a multi-year lease to buy that, and you have a buyback at the end of whatever it's going to be, $20,000.
So why on earth would you spend $50,000 for a Lexus when you can get one for $600?
I mean, if somebody said that in an article on financing and debt, I mean, they would not be allowed out of the house because they'd have their shoes on their hands.
So yeah, USPS is inexpensive because it's in debt.
The other thing, too, is the USPS should have an option to say no junk mail.
Of course, right?
I mean, you can flag things for spam in your inbox, for Christ's sakes, but you can't ask the USPS to stop delivering you spam, which is heavily subsidized as well, because then the USPS would not be able to deliver anything except pink slips to USPS workers.
Another example is education.
A recent ProPublica report found that in the past 20 years, four-year state colleges have been serving a diminishing portion of the country's lowest-income students.
At the K-12 level, cost-saving business strategies apply to the privatization of our children's education.
Charter schools are less likely to accept students with disabilities.
Charter teachers have fewer years of experience and a higher turnover rate.
Which means they can get fired or quit because it doesn't happen in the public sector.
Non-teacher positions have insufficient retirement plans and health insurance and much lower pay.
Non-teacher positions have insufficient retirement plans.
What does that mean?
It means that people would like more for their retirement plans.
So if you're really concerned about people's retirement plans, all you have to do is get rid of the income tax And people say, well, my goodness, we can't get rid of the income tax, you see, because the income tax is used to provide all these government services.
Absolutely incorrect.
The income tax in the United States is used to pay interest on the debt of the US government.
And the US government is in debt because it borrows money.
from the Federal Reserve.
Why does it borrow money from the Federal Reserve?
Because the Federal Reserve people don't like working for a living.
And it's great if you can control the nation's money supply and lend money to the government.
So you would repudiate that debt in any just society and you would cancel the income tax and then people would have enough money to save for their own retirement.
But that's a little bit too much research for someone like this to do.
Fewer years of experience.
What that means generally is the teachers are younger and that they quit or can be fired if they don't perform.
Wouldn't that be great all around?
43% of sick Americans skipped doctor's visits and or medication purchases in 2011 because of excessive costs.
It's estimated that over 40,000 Americans die every year because they can't afford health insurance.
Well, that's interesting.
I think that health insurance should certainly be cheaper, which would mean getting the government out of healthcare.
Do you know what's actually pretty cheap?
You can get a tablet now for like $59 because the government doesn't regulate and control the hardware and software industry to any significant degree.
And so things tend to get cheaper and better overall, whereas all the stuff that the government's control tends to get worse and more expensive.
So...
More than 40,000 Americans die every year because the government is not allowing for the approval of drugs which other countries have allowed as particularly safe and have been used for years in other countries, beta blockers and other things to help control heart problems and so on.
Upwards of 5 to 7 million Americans have died unnecessarily because of the government's control and repudiation of medicines that other countries have deemed perfectly safe and have been used for many years in other countries.
And this was because a couple of hundred children were born with birth defects.
So 5 million deaths.
Anyway, so you just have to look deeper.
That's all.
Privatization turns essential human needs into products.
Big business would like to privatize our water.
A Citigroup economist exulted, water as an asset class will, in my view, become eventually the single most important physical commodity-based asset class.
Dwarfing oil, copper, blah, blah, blah.
They want our federal land!
Our federal land?
So federal government owns like a third of America?
What is ours to do with it?
Have you ever tried going to walk on that federal land?
Would you like to go and buy a house or build a house on that federal land?
Would you like to dig a ditch or drill for oil on that federal land?
I don't think it's ours.
I think it belongs to the people who are currently in power.
Yeah, I think privatizing water would be fantastic, because then there'd be a very strong incentive to keep it clean.
Because when you invest in an asset, you really want to keep it valuable, and dirty water is not valuable, so I think privatizing water would be a great way to keep it clean.
They want our cities.
Fine, yeah.
They want our bodies.
All right.
Public systems promote a strong middle class.
Part of a free market mythology is that public employees and union workers are greedy takers enjoying benefits that average private sector workers are denied.
But the facts show that government and union workers are not overpaid.
According to Census Bureau, state and local government employees make up 14.5% of the U.S. workforce and receive 14.3% of the total compensation.
Really?
So the fact that they have completely gold-plated pensions, the fact that they have incredible job security during a particular time when the government is cranking up and down the economy in a semi-random way because it's monkeying around with money supply and interest rates.
So the fact that government workers have near ironclad job security, the fact that they have legions of sick days, the fact that they can take weeks at a time off, the fact that they have incredible insurance and disability and long and short-term disabilities, and the fact that they have pensions that are not pegged to inflation and the fact that they have pensions that are not pegged to inflation but rather fixed in terms of how much they're going to go up in So just looking at the salary is completely ridiculous.
I mean, it's like, okay, I'm going to hire you and I'm going to pay you $20 an hour.
I'm going to pay the guy next to you $20 an hour, but I'm also going to give you an apartment and a car that I'm going to pay for.
And then you say, well, they're both only making $20 an hour, so I guess they're paid about the same.
No, when you put the benefits and the pay together, not even counting things like job security, public sector workers are earning 30% to 40% to 50% more than private sector workers.
So yeah.
And of course, what are they doing with all of that?
I mean, what are they doing?
The private sector has an incentive to fail or no incentive at all.
The most obvious incentive to fail is in the private prison industry.
Oh!
The prison industry.
The private prison industry, that's right.
It's so private, you know, just like hardware and software, it's so private.
So let's see, who pays the prison industry?
Oh, that's right, it's the government.
Who sends prisoners to the prisoner?
Oh, that's right, that's the government.
That's right.
Who manages the recidivism of prisoners, the parole system and all that, and who can send the prisoners back?
Oh, that's right, the government.
How is all this paid for?
Private equity, private investors, the sweat of angels' wings, the grace of God, the sweat of Lucifer?
No.
In fact, it's paid for through taxes.
And that's what this person calls a private industry.
How can you type?
Are you typing with your forehead?
One would think it is a worthy goal to rehabilitate prisoners and gradually empty the jails.
No.
No.
A private prison industry is paid by the government per prisoner, so of course they have an incentive to have more prisoners.
That's how they make their money, which is why in a free market society, in a truly free society, this is not even remotely how it would be run because it's way too much of a conflict of interest.
But business is too good.
With each prisoner generating up to $40,000 a year in revenue, the number of prisoners in private facilities has increased from 1990 to 2009 with more than 1,600 percent.
Absolutely.
Corrections Corporation of America recently offered to run the prison system in any state willing to guarantee that jails stay 90% full.
Absolutely terrible, completely, and totally wretched.
And that's what happens when you have the government pay private corporations.
When you have public money and private property, that's called fascism.
You may have heard that term before.
It's called fascism.
Mussolini, some aspects of Nazism, National Socialism, but it is fascism.
It's publicly generated money with private corporations profiting from that money.
It has nothing to do with the free market at all.
With public systems, we don't have to listen to individual initiative rantings.
Oh, damn!
Y'all used the word rantings, didn't you?
Well, that...
Is an incredible argument.
In fact, I think that that's what brought down Socrates.
It's like, Socrates, this is just quibbly style, immature, bald-headed rantings, man.
I bow to your superior wisdom.
Back in the Reagan years, a stunning claim.
See, you call it stunning, and you use the word Reagan and Thatcher.
So you use the word Reagan and Thatcher, that's like raving a red flag in front of these snorting, brain-dead socialist horde of bulls.
Reagan!
Thatcher!
Brains!
Please, eat some brains.
Get some brains in you.
Margaret Thatcher said, there's no such thing as society.
There are individual men and women, and there are families.
More recently, Paul Ryan complained that government support drains individual initiative and personal responsibility.
Oh, wait, aren't you going to make an argument?
Oh, sorry, fooled.
Of course you're not going to make an argument.
Use the word Reagan and Thatcher.
Of course it's an evil statement.
There's no such thing as society.
There are individual men and women, and there are families.
Yes.
That's true.
There is no such thing as society.
Of course that's true.
I mean, don't be ridiculous.
Society is a label.
Right?
If I say, oh look, four coconuts...
Can I use the number four to break open one of the coconuts?
No.
It's a freaking concept, for Christ's sake.
Learn how your brain works.
Learn how language works.
Learn how philosophy and reason works.
Learn how basic thinking works.
If I say to my four-year-old daughter, here, eat the word banana, she'll look at me and laugh.
Daddy, you're making a silly joke.
That's right.
I'm making a silly joke.
You don't have to wear your coat.
You just have to wear the idea of a coat.
And she'd look at me like I was retarded.
I'm going to look at you the same way.
Sorry.
It just has to be said.
It has to be done.
Of course, it's a label.
It's a concept.
That's easy to say for people with good jobs.
Individual initiative on publicly supported communications infrastructure allows the richest 10% of Americans to manipulate their 80% share of the stock market.
Oh, the stock market!
Please don't tell me that you're claiming that the stock market is something to do with the free market when the government herds everyone's money in there under threat of stealing it if they don't put it in there through pension plans, 401k plans, you name it.
So the stock market is a statist enclosure where people's money is herded to be ripped off and to die.
CEOs rely on roads and seaports and airports to ship their products.
The FAA, NTSA and Coast Guard and Department of Transportation to safeguard them.
A nationwide energy grid to power their factories and communications towers and satellites to conduct online businesses.
Yes, it's true!
The government has a monopoly on stuff and we have to use it in order to live.
That doesn't mean we love the government!
If you're a slave, your slave owner has a monopoly on your food supply.
That doesn't mean you love him like he's a restaurant owner.
Fuck.
Me.
Oh, my God.
I mean, people, if I take a monopoly on something and people in order to live have to use it, that doesn't make them hypocrites.
You know, you can be in a concentration camp.
Lean in close.
Blow a few cobwebs from your brain.
Sorry, I don't have a leaf blower.
You can be in a concentration camp and you can, in order to live, eat the food that the camp guards give you.
You can be a Jew in Nazi Germany.
You can be Ivan Denisovich under Stalinist Russia.
You can be in a prison camp.
You can be in a concentration camp.
You can eat the food and even see the doctors, if you're sick, that are provided to you by your tyrants.
That doesn't mean that you willingly approve of the system.
You know, one of the ways that you know that people in a concentration camp—come on, closer, closer—one of the ways that you know that people in a concentration camp don't approve of the system is—I'm going to shock you—a couple of things.
One, the guards, they have guns, right?
Like, there's barbed wire around it, and there's guns, and if you try to leave, they fucking shoot you.
And then they throw you into the dog pound so the dogs can rip your body apart.
And so they don't really approve of it voluntarily because they get shot if they try to leave.
So it's true that the government has taken a monopolistic power, violent control over particular things in society.
The fact that we use them doesn't mean that it's moral.
Doesn't mean that...
Like, if I lock you in my basement and I feed you, that doesn't mean that you like being locked in the basement because you eat the fucking food I give you.
Do you understand?
Can you...
No, not you.
Maybe somebody else.
Somebody watching this.
You won't get it.
All right.
Perhaps most important to business, even as it focuses on short-term profits, is the long-term basic research that is largely conducted with government money.
As of 2009, universities were still receiving ten times more science and engineering funding from government than from industry.
And so what?
How do you know what is the right amount of funding for research and development?
How do you know?
I mean, if it's more, let's make it a hundred times more.
Let's make it a thousand times.
Let's make it...
Let's just sell everyone.
Sell everyone and just give all the money in the world to research and development.
No, no.
Let's give zero.
Who knows?
Nobody knows!
Trust me, I ran a software company for 15 years.
I was the head of research and development.
To this day, I do not know if we spent the right amount on research and development.
We would adjust it.
Sometimes we would spend this amount.
Sometimes we would spend that amount.
But how do you know what is the right amount of research and development?
Nobody knows.
The arrogance to think that you know is completely delusional.
The idea that there are these people who are going to make all of these great and wise decisions with guns.
Because, you know, all the people who can make the best decisions in the world always want to be armed.
You know, because they're really wise, really smart, know exactly what should be done in society.
We know they're persuasive because they're politicians, so they get power by being persuasive.
They have the very best ideas.
They're very persuasive, so naturally, they want lots of guns.
You get how insane that is, right?
The only people who want to force you to do stuff are people who know that their ideas are shit to begin with.
It is a basic fact of life that anybody who wants to force you to do something knows that what they want to do is shit to begin with.
You understand that, right?
I mean, not a lot of rapists try to be really good lovers, right?
Because they don't have to sell quality.
They've got violence.
Like everyone's mad about Barack Obama's, you know, Java 1.0 website from hell.
Who gives a shit?
They don't care.
I mean, because if you don't pay them, they will throw you in jail.
And so people will pay them.
Quality doesn't matter.
People get mad.
It should be more quality.
Oh, they should have done it.
It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter.
They have guns.
They force you to do stuff.
And if you say no, they throw you in jail.
So you think that a small number of people should be given all the guns in the world to inflict their wills on everyone else, which is what statism is.
That's mad.
It's completely delusional.
The people with the best ideas are the most voluntary.
The best parents do not beat their children.
In fact, if you beat your children, you're saying, I'm a shitty parent, I don't know what I'm doing, and I'm pretty sadistic.
None of those.
I mean, a rapist is saying, I'm not a good boyfriend!
I mean, why do we even need to say this?
Why do we even need to say this?
People with guns are telling you to your face, my ideas suck, I'm a bully, I get a thrill out of power, so if I can do what I say, I'll shoot you in the ass.
By definition, you pick up the gun.
It's a confession that all of your ideas are made out of the shit of Satan.
▲
Export Selection