So far, you're wrong on your prediction about being downvoted (not a bad thing, indeed!). However, I do have clarifying questions on a particular statement you make, above all others:
"If there is no victim, there is no need for government to get involved."
This would seem to imply that government exists only to remedy the instances in which actual victims exist.
But this begs two questions (to begin with): namely, (1) How does one (or, more specifically, government) determine that there has been a victim, and therefore, that "there is (a) need for government to get involved"?
And (2) Even if there has been a victim, why does that necessitate government involvement, de facto?
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherw