Originally Posted by tonton
No, you didn't. You are following the analogy in parallel, except where you took the analogy literally, which didn't make any sense. And you're agreeing with me.
I'll have a bottle of whatever he's drinking please.
You said that in a healthy society, the restaurant provides what some of the people need (a clean and maintained toilet), free of charge (well, bundled into the charge of going into that restaurant), whether all of the people need it or not. That's exactly what you said.
Actually that isn't at all what I said. I said that a good business has used economies of scale to drive the cost of a core product down to a point to where price alone is not the key difference and because of this businesses use their profits to add to the value proposition. The simplified version of this is they begin giving you things to keep you as a customer out of fear you can take your business elsewhere. It has nothing to do with whether people need it or not. Your restaurant puts in a bathroom because if someone leaves the restaurant to go take a leak, their wallet leaves with them and might not come back when it finds the restaurant down the street that also sells beer and even provides chips for free to make you more thirsty.
And that is EXACTLY correct. In a healthy nation, the government provides what some of the people need (e.g. healthcare and education), free of charge (bundled with the cost of living in that state, i.e. taxes), whether all of the people need it or not.
A healthy nation honors it's founding document which states the rationale for government. Being needy is not one of rationales.
You also said that it's only in unhealthy societies where the restaurant charges people for those things on a user pays basis. That's exactly correct. It's only unhealthy societies where the government demands user pays for basic services.
This is not even close. This isn't seriously just one big joke your telling in getting it this wrong?!? I didn't say the society was unhealthy. I said that government providing for basic needs made those who receive the government services disrespectful of private property and thus the patrons of private property in areas of government largess damage said property and thus the owners need a surcharge to survive there.
The fact that you cannot see the parallel is puzzling. I'm sure you're smarter than that. I think you just didn't think it through.
I think perhaps you've fallen and hit your head.
And now that I've pointed it out, it comes down to intellectual honesty. Are you intellectually honest enough to see it now?
Am I honest enough to note that the framework you continue to push is absurd and that the comprehension of what you've declared you understand from my writing is profoundly bad? Absolutely.
Are you honest enough to note that you've basically had to go to the extreme of distorting and declaring me ignorant of my own typed words in some desperate attempt to sustain, well what I don't really know. It's very odd, that's for sure.