[throw10920]

> Government doesn't provide services.

Yet again, factually incorrect. The government provides many services - social security, food stamps, military protection, utilities, research funding, pharmaceutical oversight, and many, many, many other things. You're just wrong.

> You provide the service of producing economic value.

Also wrong. That is not a "service" provided to the government - it's just something that people do, and they have the right to keep those rewards.

> You can't with straight face claim that profit is not captured by billionaires but by everybody if economy grows 3% but billionaires wealth doubles in the same period

Those things are unrelated.

Yet again - a mixture between stupidity and malice, driven by base greed, envy, and resentment of what others have that you don't.

[scotty79]

> Yet again, factually incorrect. The government provides many services - social security, food stamps, military protection, utilities, research funding, pharmaceutical oversight, and many, many, many other things. You're just wrong.

Sorry for using a short-hand. Government doesn't provide services for your benefit. The only goal of providing those benefits is to best enable you to produce economic value that government and the rich can capture.

> That is not a "service" provided to the government - it's just something that people do, and they have the right to keep those rewards.

The only right of the physical world is might.

Why do you think anyone just lets people do what people "just" do? They let people do it because powerful benefit.

It's the same reasoning why a warlord lets peasants grow crops and raise animals and chases away neighboring warlord. Because then there's something he can take for himself. Political systems change but the basic mechanic never did. Democracy and capitalism are just a way better tool for exploitation than feudalism could ever be. Efficient. Stable. Didn't you ever notice that with development of new, more enlightened systems of power tax burden doesn't shrink but grows instead?

> Those things are unrelated.

We have one monetary system. It's all related.

> Yet again - a mixture between stupidity and malice, driven by base greed, envy, and resentment of what others have that you don't.

I have plenty, way more than I ever deserved. I'm at risk of being directly negatively financially affected by policies I advocate for. Drop the armchair moral psychoanalysis because you miss every time, on all counts.

[throw10920]

> The only right of the physical world is might.

Ok, you're just evil. No need to justify anything to an evil person.

[scotty79]

Wrong again. Being a realist doesn't make someone evil, but hell is paved with good intentions.

[throw10920]

> Being a realist

Factually incorrect. "The only right of the physical world is might." is not a realist statement, because being a realist is when you look at the factual truth of the world - it's a cynical worldview, which is non-truthful and therefore non-realist, by definition.

It's always entertaining to watch evil people try to justify their actions and (lack of) morality.

[scotty79]

> Factually incorrect. "The only right of the physical world is might." is not a realist statement,

It's absolutely correct. Familiarize yourself with concept of "monopoly on violence". That's the physical source of any other arrangements including rights.

You handwave about some vague morality a lot, even after your accusation of envy missed by a mile and you think it's a substitute for a robust argument. It's tiresome and boring.

[throw10920]

> Familiarize yourself with concept of "monopoly on violence". That's the physical source of any other arrangements including rights.

Now you shifted the goalposts from "The only right of the physical world is might." - so you can't even be consistent with your own positions.

> You handwave about some vague morality a lot

It should be pretty obvious that an evil person or someone with a repellent ideology's claims on morality are invalid, and how that's relevant to assertions about the function of the government, for instance.

The "might is right" ideology means that you believe that every tyrant, like Mao and Hitler and Stalin and Mussolini, was justified in their genocides and war crimes, because they were powerful enough to effect them, and therefore morally right by definition. That is, as any sane person would tell you, a perverse and evil morality.

I don't really need to go on further, because I know that I can't convince an evil and immoral person that they're evil. My only goal is to convince future HN readers that that idea is evil, and that therefore your assertions are invalid, and I think I've succeeded at that, given the downvotes on your other comments, and the general HN understanding that "might is right" is an abhorrent ideology.

So, my goal is fulfilled. Feel free to continue digging yourself a hole for future readers, if you wish :)