The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Thanks

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: +1 (see in situ)


I know I'm rambling, but one further illustration came to mind. (And at least Richelle doesn't seem to mind yet.)

I had a discussion with a young lady once who wanted to get married. After intuiting some of my views on the subject, she emphasized that if she got married and had children she would want "the law for protection."

I didn't say much at the time, but it occurred to me later that, in view of the court system we have and the "help" it could offer me in this regard, if I was going to marry someone and I was counting on that kind of help, I would be much better to not marry. I would want to find someone I trust enough such that any such help would be irrelevant.

Of course marriage is an extreme example. In principle, lots of things can change and go wrong. But for precisely that reason, the level of knowledge, trust, community, commitment or *something* has to be significant and strong. How can anyone go into something like that relying on the state to "help?" That's my view.

And likewise, how can anyone go into life with the view that they plan to proceed relying on the assistance of the state?