I might frame the issue in this way:
Either the reportedly "happy" people of "socialist" governments, would voluntarily cooperate for the supposed social-goods as they are currently provided without the need of a "socialist" government to compel them to do so, in which case the role of the "socialist" government to compel or force those "happy" people to submit to its rules, is unnecessary, OR the "happy" people of "socialist" governments would NOT voluntarily so cooperate to provide the supposed "social-goods" *absent* the threat of force by government to compel compliance, in which case they would be happier/greater-net-satisfaction if the government did not exist.
Or more succinctly:
Either, they would voluntarily remain "socialist" in which case "their" government is unnecessary, or else they would not do so voluntarily, in which case, they would be happier/more-satisfied if the government did not exist.
No comments:
Post a Comment