You're viewing part of a thread.
I usually don't lol. It's very rare for me to get into a conversation as much of a tangled mess as this one.
I'm flattered. Thank you. I find the conversation enjoyable, though I agree it's a tangled mess. Yet if you'd find it prudent to quickly wind it down, I won't be offended.
Instigate? No. Enable? Absolutely.
Well then we're close to splitting hairs. My contention is governments should be too small to enable companies to grow huge. I get that we don't completely see eye-to-eye on this, but I'm not sure it's worth our bickering over the details.
The mega-corporations are the natural result of capitalism. You can't have one without the other.
I mentioned the importance of definitions recently. Among people who disagree over capitalism, I find we are often operating on different definitions. What if we just talk about free markets? There's nothing about freedom that inherently gives rise to mega-corporations. They didn't even exist until relatively modern times.
There are also numerous lottery winner stories around. That doesn't mean that everybody should buy lottery tickets as a means to success.
No kidding. When you hold a race, there's one winner. You might give out medals for second and third place, but most competitors are losers. And that's great. Everyone goes home and tries again tomorrow. In the end, some people are never able to win at all, due to lack of drive, technique, or what-have-you, and that's fine. Life isn't fair, and we wouldn't want it to be. All that matters is that everyone's able to compete, fair and square.
Nowadays people are too poor to reasonably afford a home, food, and the basic necessities. The retirement age keeps getting higher. The majority of americans are living paycheck to paycheck. It absolutely has been dead, and for a while.
Okay, now I really wonder where you live. Is it a West Coast city? What you describe is absolutely not the America I know and love.
Inheriting wealth is not a means for being successful for the overwhelming majority of americans.
Yeah, it was a joke. I explicitly said I was joking.
The success of a business is directly tied to the starting investment.
No, not usually. Its rate of scale is directly tied to the starting investment. It's eventual success is only tied to that certain kinds of tech startups, where a ton of work is needed before there's anything to show for it. For most businesses, success is tied to vision and execution.
If you don't feel like you are free then what is the point?
The point is always God. And God, incidentally, is the source of our freedom. People may feel a lack of freedom resulting from estrangement from God. That's hardly the fault of corporations (although you could make a good case that any corporation propagating secular culture is indirectly at fault.)
"Just about any business" does not equate to a livable wage, because just about all businesses have employees who are being paid below a livable wage. And like I said, horizontal mobility is not true mobility.
What's a livable wage? That's a mighty subjective phrase. It wasn't long ago that many of us lived in single-room log cabins that we built ourselves, hauled our own water without plumbing, used outhouses, lacked electricity, had a horse and cart instead of a truck, and grew most of our own food. And we were happy. Because we had God, and in the end that's all we've ever needed. If you're defining a "livable wage" in terms of anything more than that standard, it's unreasonable.
I'm flattered. Thank you. I find the conversation enjoyable...
I am enjoying it too, and it's quite alright. I'm (so far) able to keep up.
Well then we're close to splitting hairs.
I'll move on then from this part.
What if we just talk about free markets? There's nothing about...
Even the term "free markets" is incredibly vague. And depending on what you count as "modern times", even capitalism itself hasn't existed until modern times. So it would kind of not make sense to expect to see mega corps in an economic system that doesn't permit the kind of corps we see today.
And I hate to repeat myself, but core principle of capitalism is competition, but competitions inherently have winners. And therefore the freedom you speak of inherently gives rise to mega-corps. They buy each other up and kill off competitors until they become mega-corps.
Any given loser of a competition under capitalism may not immediately die, but each loss forces a company closer and closer to dying.
everyone's able to compete, fair and square.
We unfortunately don't have that though due to inheritance discrepancies, and the burden of entry that corporations put in place through their control of politicians, and through the inherent difficulty of starting a business in an economy as specialized as ours.
For instance if somebody wanted to start up a new business to compete with google, at a minimum they would need several billion dollars to have a reasonable chance of success. Google has such a huge market share and is so well established that it would take decades for any new company to put an actual dent in google's market share.
Is it a West Coast city? What you describe is absolutely not the America...
I actually live on the East coast, in a mid to large sized city, I think mine is 3rd in pop for my state. And as for your second bit here, I haven't made anything up.
Majority of citizens living paycheck to paycheck
Housing is increasingly unaffordable with an 18% hike in prices I don't know about you, but my wage has never increased anywhere close to be able to match that. Grocery prices are no different
The retirement age is going up
Yeah, it was a joke. I explicitly said I was joking.
Sorry, I am a very argumentative person if you couldn't tell already lol
No, not usually. Its rate of scale is directly tied to the starting investment. It's eventual success is only tied to that certain kinds of tech startups, where a ton of work is needed before there's anything to show for it. For most businesses, success is tied to vision and execution.
This is another one of the issues that I wish I had more data on, but unfortunately do not. The closest I was able to find was this:
https://www.luisazhou.com/blog/startup-failure-statistics/
And the most frequent cause of failure is lack of cash, which definitely ties into what I've been saying.
People may feel a lack of freedom resulting from estrangement from God.
So this is similar to the drug addiction/true christian inverse correlation that I've been talking about in one of the other threads. I know you don't quite agree with the freedom index I've been using, but freedom is not in any way correlated with christianity.
What's a livable wage? That's a mighty subjective phrase
Sure, it's a subjective phrase, and I would personally like to see it added and defined within a new amendment to the constitution, though it probably would never happen
As for an actual definition, a living wage should be defined as a wage that is sufficient to raise a family on, with adequate housing and food. A living wage should be a basic but decent wage for a family.
I would also like to point out that you seem to have missed my point about the lack of freedom through vertical mobility.
And we were happy. Because we had God...
I don't think that was the reason, I think the reason was because life was literally simpler and more connected to nature. Also you can't be happy if you can't afford food and shelter.
anything more than that standard, it's unreasonable
I'm not saying a livable wage is one in which you will be able to afford anything fancy. It should be a basic wage, but enough so that you can have a family without worry
core principle of capitalism is competition, but competitions inherently have winners.
This is false. A broad class of competitions do not have winners. Only zero-sum games have winners. The economy is not a zero sum game. Every participant adds value.
For instance if somebody wanted to start up a new business to compete with google, at a minimum they would need several billion dollars to have a reasonable chance of success. Google has such a huge market share and is so well established that it would take decades for any new company to put an actual dent in google's market share.
Oh yeah? May I introduce you to Gabriel Weinberg, who started a Google competitor in his basement with a $0 investment, which now earns $25 million annually.
And the most frequent cause of failure is lack of cash, which definitely ties into what I've been saying.
It's true, but most successful entrepreneurs learn from previous failures, so many of those failed companies generally result in eventual success.
Sure, it's a subjective phrase ["livable wage"], and I would personally like to see it added and defined within a new amendment to the constitution, though it probably would never happen
I've occasionally thought it would be nice to have a website where anyone could post "bills" they wish were actual laws, and other users could vote on them. It'd be fun. Not that I really think we need any more laws. I just wonder what people would come up with.
As for an actual definition, a living wage should be defined as a wage that is sufficient to raise a family on, with adequate housing and food. A living wage should be a basic but decent wage for a family.
You'd struggle to transform that into a legally reliable definition. Does it include iPads for the kids? How about the cost of pet grooming? Vacations for the whole family to the Bahamas every couple of months? Where exactly do you draw the line? Again, it was commonplace for most people to grow their own food in the not too distant past, and we lived simple lives. Isn't a living wage, then, $0?
I would also like to point out that you seem to have missed my point about the lack of freedom through vertical mobility.
I didn't miss it. I just skipped the reply. Because I see plenty of evidence that vertical mobility is alive and well. You can deny it all you'd like, but there are so many rags-to-riches stories. Maybe you don't hear about them much because they're mostly Republican.
Also you can't be happy if you can't afford food and shelter.
Jesus could.
This is false. A broad class of competitions do not have winners. Only zero-sum games have winners. The economy is not a zero sum game. Every participant adds value.
This varies wildly by industry. Some are zero-sum, some are positive sum. And the age of an industry is usually the defining factor for this, which means most industries turn into zero-sum. Take for instance nuclear fuel pellets. A company who takes part in such an industry is in a zero-sum one because of how limited the demand is for it. And the demand for nuclear fuel pellets doesn't change much at all because of how long it takes to build new reactors, how much political force it takes to build one, etc. A company in such an industry can't expand the total demand much at all, so there is no new value they can add.
Oh yeah? May I introduce you to Gabriel Weinberg
An MIT graduate with past business experience and their foot in the door a decade and a half ago isn't really evidence that just anyone can start a new business today to compete with google.
so many of those failed companies generally result in eventual success.
Not everybody can afford to have a failed company on their hands.
I just wonder what people would come up with.
I think that is a fun idea and I would fully support it. I think you'd be surprised at the amount of "socialist" policies that are widely popular. It would be a difficult thing to pull off though given that most people don't really know how to write in leagalise, and how many policies need to be rather complicated or need a high level of understanding to make sense.
Does it include iPads for the kids? How about the cost of pet grooming? Vacations for the whole family to the Bahamas every couple of months? Where exactly do you draw the line?
None of that crap.
Food + Housing + Basic utilities + Transportation + Healthcare (if not already universalized) + Maybe a 5-10% on top for discretionary spending.
However much each of these end up costing, calculated yearly, added up, should be a reasonable start.
Again, it was commonplace for most people to grow their own food in the not too distant past, and we lived simple lives. Isn't a living wage, then, $0?
If everybody owned land, it would be much closer to $0. But you still need to buy/get/pay for fertilizer, water, heating, taxes etc. Those things aren't free. I would love to own my own self-sufficient homestead and have been rather obsessed with videos about it. I wish everybody had the money/land for it, but that's not how things are.
And additionally, everybody having their own homestead isn't generally a good thing for efficiency, because economies of scale probably also applies to food production, and therefore it is more efficient to have industrial farming as the main food source.
Because I see plenty of evidence that vertical mobility is alive and well.
I can't remember if I posted this link elsewhere, but I'll do it again just in case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index
We are #27. We could be doing far better.
Maybe you don't hear about them much because they're mostly Republican.
I don't hear about them because I don't really care for lottery winning stories, and avoid the news sources that show them. I want news with more substance than that.
Jesus could.
We aren't all Jesus and are therefore subject to the negative effects of poverty.
This varies wildly by industry. Some are zero-sum, some are positive sum. And the age of an industry is usually the defining factor for this, which means most industries turn into zero-sum. Take for instance nuclear fuel pellets. A company who takes part in such an industry is in a zero-sum one because of how limited the demand is for it. And the demand for nuclear fuel pellets doesn't change much at all because of how long it takes to build new reactors, how much political force it takes to build one, etc. A company in such an industry can't expand the total demand much at all, so there is no new value they can add.
I'm not formally trained in economics or game theory, but this doesn't seem right to me. Anyone employed in the manufacture of nuclear fuel pellets adds value to the economy simply by virtue of showing up for work, and doing whatever it is they do.
An MIT graduate with past business experience and their foot in the door a decade and a half ago isn't really evidence that just anyone can start a new business today to compete with google.
Again, entrepreneurs usually need to fail, and build upon those failures, before finding success. It's normal.
The fact that he's an MIT grad doesn't mean much. Anyone can start a Google competitor, but the kind of people who do are the same kind of people likely to want to attend MIT.
Not everybody can afford to have a failed company on their hands.
Almost everyone can, though not everyone wants to. It's stressful and time-consuming, though also rewarding in a variety of ways. Even if it fails.
I think that is a fun idea and I would fully support it. I think you'd be surprised at the amount of "socialist" policies that are widely popular. It would be a difficult thing to pull off though given that most people don't really know how to write in leagalise, and how many policies need to be rather complicated or need a high level of understanding to make sense.
Thanks! I wouldn't be at all surprised by the popularity of socialist policies. Kids are naive. There'd be a ton of things like "Free ice cream for everyone!" As a serious policy proposal it would be objectionable, but as a playful idea it's fun to imagine. As for legalese and complications, you could make suggestions to improve someone else's idea.
Food + Housing + Basic utilities + Transportation + Healthcare (if not already universalized) + Maybe a 5-10% on top for discretionary spending.
What kind of food? Caviar? What kind of housing? McMansions? What kind of basic utilities? All 800,000 TV channels? What kind of transportation? A Bugatti? What kind of healthcare? Cosmetic surgeries for pets? It's very hard to draw the line anywhere above $0, which is the technically correct number.
If everybody owned land, it would be much closer to $0. But you still need to buy/get/pay for fertilizer, water, heating, taxes etc. Those things aren't free. I would love to own my own self-sufficient homestead and have been rather obsessed with videos about it. I wish everybody had the money/land for it, but that's not how things are.
You can make your own fertilizer with compost. You can haul your own water up from the stream. You can chop your own wood for heating. Property taxes are a racket. Yes, this presumes everyone owns property of suitable acreage, and with a stream, and that's unrealistic for everyone. But it's entirely possible for some.
I love those videos too. I try not to spend much time on YouTube, but on occasion I can easily lose an hour or two to My Self Reliance.
But to your point about a "living wage", it's going to vary from $0 for some people on up to — I shudder to think what the upper bound of that range is.
And additionally, everybody having their own homestead isn't generally a good thing for efficiency, because economies of scale probably also applies to food production, and therefore it is more efficient to have industrial farming as the main food source.
True, but as I mentioned I think economic efficiency is overrated.
We aren't all Jesus and are therefore subject to the negative effects of poverty.
We can all strive to be more like Jesus. I know it's not easy, but there's so much value in trying.
Anyone employed in the manufacture of nuclear fuel pellets adds value to the economy simply by virtue of showing up for work, and doing whatever it is they do.
But when they do that it doesn't change the demand for nuclear fuel pellets. The demand is largely static, so in order to sell X more pellets, X pellets from other producers must go unsold/not made. Somebody else has to lose, which makes it a zero sum game.
The fact that he's an MIT grad doesn't mean much.
It does. Not everybody is an MIT grad or has the skills to be one, and yet you say that just anybody can compete with google. That is a contradiction.
Almost everyone can
60% of the country cannot because they are living paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford it.
I wouldn't be at all surprised by the popularity of socialist policies. Kids are naive.
Basically every other developed nation seems to think otherwise. For example, we are more or less the only one without universal healthcare, that's what's naive.
What kind of food? Caviar? What kind of housing? McMansions? What kind of basic utilities? All 800,000 TV channels? What kind of transportation? A Bugatti? What kind of healthcare?
Basic food, not caviar. Basic housing, not mcmansions. Utilities should include heating, cooling, water, electric, literally just the basic necessitites, not cable. Etc.
You're splitting hairs at this point.
It's very hard to draw the line anywhere above $0, which is the technically correct number.
Nobody can survive on $0. You need to have food water and shelter.
Yes, this presumes everyone owns property of suitable acreage, and with a stream, and that's unrealistic for everyone. But it's entirely possible for some.
If it is unrealistic for everyone then it isn't a reasonable answer to what the minimum wage should be.
it's going to vary from $0 for some people on up to — I shudder to think
If housing in this country wasn't so fucked, it would probably be around $40-50k a year. Nobody is buying caviar and a bugatti with that budget.
We can all strive to be more like Jesus. I know it's not easy, but there's so much value in trying.
Blaming individuals for the failures of a system, and suggesting individuals change to deal with that defect in the system is irrational.
But when they do that it doesn't change the demand for nuclear fuel pellets. The demand is largely static, so in order to sell X more pellets, X pellets from other producers must go unsold/not made. Somebody else has to lose, which makes it a zero sum game.
The production of anything means it's not zero-sum. Demand can expand and contract over time in any market, but that doesn't matter. If you grow an apple or produce a nuclear fuel pellet, you add value to the economy. Now if there are multiple sellers competing, then it'll drive down the price. But we're not discussing prices here.
It does. Not everybody is an MIT grad or has the skills to be one, and yet you say that just anybody can compete with google. That is a contradiction.
It's a matter of drive. Anyone can try to compete with Google. Someone must be adequately driven, and reasonably intelligent to succeed. But everyone who fails will gain the opportunities to build on those failures and start a more successful venture.
60% of the country cannot because they are living paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford it.
Again you can start a business for $0 or next to nothing.
Basically every other developed nation seems to think otherwise. For example, we are more or less the only one without universal healthcare, that's what's naive.
Why would we Americans care what other countries think? We're blessed by God to be the greatest country on Earth. People flock from around the world to live here, and they want to so badly that they're willing to become illegal just to live here. It's very rare that you can find a principle applicable to other countries which also happens to be applicable to the US. If some other country wants to give out "free" ice cream to all of its citizens (in exchange, of course, for an obscenely high tax), they can have at it, for all we care.
literally just the basic necessitites, not cable. Etc.
My point was that it's subjective what the "necessities" are. Some people like me will say it costs $0, while others may insist it's a minimum of $250k. This is complicated by the fact that the dollar is worth dramatically different values in different parts of the country, a fact often ignored. Generally speaking it's worth much less in urban areas.
Nobody can survive on $0. You need to have food water and shelter.
Again, grow your own food, haul your own water up from the stream, and build your own shelter out of logs you felled yourself. $0, just like our forefathers.
If it is unrealistic for everyone then it isn't a reasonable answer to what the minimum wage should be.
Whoa, I thought we were discussing your notion of a "livable wage" as an abstract concept, but now you're changing it to minimum wage. The concept of a minimum wage is evil for multiple reasons.
First and foremost, it's a free country, and so we're all allowed to negotiate our own terms of business. If I want to hire someone for $1 a day, and that person agrees to the compensation, it's nobody else's business. Not yours, not the government's, nobody's.
Secondly, minimum wages are absolutely disastrous for the economy, and that has been shown time and again. When you run a business, you have a certain budget to spend on compensation. Let's say you want to hire two people to help you, and you can afford a maximum of $100 per day to hire them. That means you can pay them about $6 per hour maximum. Now some busybody steps in, and introduces an oppressive law that you have to pay more than $6. Well that sucks, doesn't it. That means you can't hire two people after all. You can still hire one person up to $12 per hour, but you'll have to overwork him to produce the results of two workers. Meanwhile somebody else will be jobless. Now let's say the busybody comes back and says $12 is still too low! Well fine, that means you can't hire anyone at all. So now we have two people out of work who would have had jobs. And it also means you'll need to find a robot that's cheaper than $100 per day, because if you can't then the busybody just drove you out of business.
The concept of minimum wage is un-American and downright evil.
Blaming individuals for the failures of a system, and suggesting individuals change to deal with that defect in the system is irrational.
What system? We're all individuals.
The production of anything means it's not zero-sum. Demand can expand and contract over time in any market, but that doesn't matter. If you grow an apple or produce a nuclear fuel pellet, you add value to the economy. Now if there are multiple sellers competing, then it'll drive down the price. But we're not discussing prices here.
Value to the economy isn't the issue here though. The topic is about whether or not a company hurts another through competition, and economic value cannot explain or measure the of hurting other companies.
If 10,000 fuel pellets are needed for the year, then the market will create and sell roughly 10,000 pellets for the year. If company A sells extra pellets, going from 1k/yr to 2k/yr those sales need to come from somewhere within that 10,000 demand limit. As a result all other companies lose 1k/yr in sales. Maybe the majority of that loss goes to company B or C, or maybe it is spread out. It would only be a positive sum game if the 10,000 pellet demand was able to increase, but it can't due to the restrictive amount of reactors. As a result of all of this, this industry is a zero sum game.
It's a matter of drive.
That's a part of it, but not the whole.
Again you can start a business for $0 or next to nothing.
Even if that is true (which it is instead highly misleading), it has nothing to do with the impact of losing a business. One is the cost of startup the other is the cost of loss.
Why would we Americans care what other countries think?
I didn't say that we should, but you said that kids are naive when it is instead developed nations that are implementing these policies.
We're blessed by God to be the greatest country on Earth.
Seems to me that having the highest number of school shootings should instantly disqualify us from such a title.
If some other country wants to give out "free" ice cream to all of its citizens (in exchange, of course, for an obscenely high tax), they can have at it, for all we care.
Actually it doesn't quite work out that way. Americans overall spend more on healthcare than most other nations because of how inefficient it is to have insurance companies leeching money away from the american people.
Overall countries spend less on healthcare with socialized medicine.
My point was that it's subjective what the "necessities" are.
Only to a degree. We can objectively measure the amount of food and water you need, what kind of shelter is the mimimally viable product while still being healthy, etc.
Again, grow your own food, haul your own water up from the stream, and build your own shelter out of logs you felled yourself. $0, just like our forefathers.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Whoa, I thought we were discussing your notion of a "livable wage" as an abstract concept, but now you're changing it to minimum wage.
The two are tied together. There should be a minimum wage, and it should be a livable one. That's how it was started and it should have stayed.
The concept of a minimum wage is evil for multiple reasons.
No it's not. Poverty wages are what's evil and the solution to them is a minimum, livable wage.
If I want to hire someone for $1 a day, and that person agrees to the compensation, it's nobody else's business. Not yours, not the government's, nobody's.
It is the business of the government to protect the people, and greedy corporations who pay poverty wages is one such thing that we need protection from.
Secondly, minimum wages are absolutely disastrous for the economy, and that has been shown time and again.
I disagree that it is disastrous, but even if it was I wouldn't mind much since the economy is the main driving force for pollution.
Let's say you want to hire two people to help you, and you can afford a maximum of $100 per day
Right there is your lie about it being $100 per day. These companies absolutely have the money to pay a living wage yet they only set the "maximum" they are willing to pay such that it is a poverty wage. These companies rake in billions upon billions of dollars a year in profits. The money is absolutely there they just like to pretend that it isn't.
What system? We're all individuals.
The government/capitalism.
As a result of all of this, this industry is a zero sum game.
I doubt any economists would agree with this. Even with declining demand, the addition of every grain of rice is a contribution to the economy.
One is the cost of startup the other is the cost of loss.
The cost of business loss is equivalent to gained experience. Let's say you extract clay from your backyard and use it to make pottery, which you then sell at your local market. Startup cost is $0, as you hand-made your own kiln and your own cart to transport your pottery.
You have a few sales, but not many. When you see people walk away from your table without buying anything, you stop them to ask them why. Several of them tell you that your products are all too small for their taste.
So you close down your shop, head back home, and get to work rebuilding your kiln to be ten times larger. Two months later you open up a brand new shop, based on your gained experience, and now your pottery sells like wildfire.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
You seem to misunderstand that phrase. It is commonly used to express the limitations of government provision. But I was talking about God's provision, and there's no limitation to that.
It is the business of the government to protect the people, and greedy corporations who pay poverty wages is one such thing that we need protection from.
Where did you get that idea? Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that government is supposed to protect the people.
Every time you imply that corporations are "greedy", you sound out of touch and inexperienced. Please start your own company. You will learn so much about the real world. It doesn't need to be anything fancy. Sell an old book on ebay. You will learn so much.
These companies absolutely have the money to pay
You make it so clear that you've never run a business and hired anyone. You're completely out of touch. Businesses have tight budgets. Sell that old book on ebay, and grow your nascent business enough that you want to hire someone to help you out. You will quickly learn that you can afford very little to hire someone, yet you're overburdened with work so you need to hire someone as cheap as possible.
I doubt any economists would agree with this. Even with declining demand, the addition of every grain of rice is a contribution to the economy.
There are many actually. There are markets for which the demand cannot increase. And like I said earlier "contribution to the economy" isn't the issue here, the market's capability for demand is. As a result there are industries that are zero sum games, with an overall tendency to move towards zero sum.
The cost of business loss is equivalent to gained experience.
Not when your house or car is collateral. Not when it is the only thing paying your rent and keeping food on the table.
But I was talking about God's provision, and there's no limitation to that.
We were talking about homesteading, which absolutely has a limit.
Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that government is supposed to protect the people.
Then why do we have an army? If the government has no responsibility to protect us, then we could easily save hundreds of billions of dollars of tax payer money by disbanding all armed forces.
Every time you imply that corporations are "greedy", you sound out of touch and inexperienced.
I don't care about how it sounds, it is the truth.
You make it so clear that you've never run a business and hired anyone
This is just an ad hominem.
Businesses have tight budgets.
Only because they budget boat loads of money for executives and shareholders.
As a result there are industries that are zero sum games, with an overall tendency to move towards zero sum.
The economy is fundamentally not a zero sum game. It cannot be, under any circumstances. I'm done arguing this point, as I'm not an economist or a game theorist, and you're not either.
[Re: "The cost of business loss is equivalent to gained experience." Not when your house or car is collateral. Not when it is the only thing paying your rent and keeping food on the table.
Sure it is. We can lose all of our material possessions, and all of our food, while we retain all of the wealth in the world through our faith in God. I advise you to study Matthew 6:24-34, but even though that's only ten verses, for brevity I'll only quote one here:
Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
We were talking about homesteading, which absolutely has a limit.
I was not talking only about homesteading. I speak of all of us who walk upon the earth.
Then why do we have an army? If the government has no responsibility to protect us, then we could easily save hundreds of billions of dollars of tax payer money by disbanding all armed forces.
The government has a responsibility to protect our nation as an institution; not to protect us each individually.
I don't care about how it sounds, it is the truth.
Except it's not. You frequently come across as confidently incorrect.
[Re: "Businesses have tight budgets."] Only because they budget boat loads of money for executives and shareholders.
Do you have any awareness that 99.9% of businesses in the US are small businesses? Literally 99.9%. (Source) Normal businesses are far closer to my example of making pottery out of clay from your backyard than they are to giant multinational corporations. But all companies, no matter the size, are normally somewhat strapped for cash, because they need to reinvest profits to grow.
Please start a business. The only reason you have not to is if you're afraid of realizing that your entire economic theory is bunk.