I'd rather not be controlled by any of them. Corporate bureaucrats can be influenced through boycotts, lawsuits, or simply taking my business elsewhere. Gov't bureaucrats are immune from lawsuits in all but the most egregious cases, and try boycotting or "voting with your feet" sometime. See what the IRS and FBI have to say about it; they won't be happy.
Bottom line is that no Corpie can come to my house at 3am with a machine-gun, kidnap me in the middle of the night, detain me against my will, beat the crap out of me (or kill me if I object) and then expect the tax-slaves to thank him for this selfless act of forced collectivisation. Gov't-type 'crats aren't just -able- to do so, they're appallingly -eager- to do so, given the slightest excuse.
One of these two evils I can safely ignore or act against. The other I cannot. I know which I'd rather have.
Quote:
|
Is it really necessary to inject that standard wharrgarbl into every debate?
|
When the debate deals with Gov't force, yes it is. Because the "gun on the table" is central to the debate; ie "is it legitimate to beat, rob, and murder people simply because a large enough majority says so and deligates their bloody-work to faceless, unaccountable thugs?" I believe that it is not.