Would you like to know why?

As it has been said before, our society could probably afford taxing hard (eventually through printing money, and thus inflation) a relatively small working elite, to allow the others to live a simple frugal country life without need of doing anything. But do we really want it?

That's not an argument to my point, because that is not the point at all. '

My point is that if we SHARE we can all live comfortably, and if we all live comfortably we can start inventing things and WORK TOWARDS LETTING THE MACHINES DO THE WORK.

And I am not wrong.

The goal isn't to mine and sit on your ass for the rest of your life while the machines do more mining to make you money to live on.

The idea is to mine, then make money, then use that money to put real life applications into place. Invention is the only one that I have mentioned, but there are plenty of other ways to start your own company, or publish your own book/magazine, start your own website, make your own movie, run a political campaign, start a charity.

Make the world a better place by mining.

EX:
If you have earned a lot of money mining, buy a "Brother" T-Shirt printing machine. It may cost $5,000-$15,000. But you now have a machine that can print like 6-12 shirts an hour, and it will look like a real shirt, not ironed on shit.

Guess what, now you own a REAL t-shirt making company. And the machines do most of the work, and you can continue mining, maybe even hire people to do the work for you, or make an invention to do it. And you can do the same with magazines, and newspapers. It's just printers, but you do have to get a really good one.

I see. And in the US? How many car companies are available over here in the US? (And what about the other 13.6% of the market?)

Or brands of icecream--and phone companies.  Also, computer manufacturers  Pizza delivery services...  Video game publishers...  Bicycle makers...


Which system are you rooting for, btw?  If not capitalism.

Why, then, are there so many different brands of Automobiles?

This is all you really needed to say.

You really think that one company will be able to dominate the market?

Would you rather have competing services for security, who you use and pay for on a voluntary basis, or a single, all-powerful monopoly on the security service industry, which you must pay for involuntarily?  Personally, I wouldn't like it if McDonalds was the only burger joint in the nation, of which I had to pay them every time they set up a new store, or risk jail time; they could then charge 20$ a burger and take their time filling out orders at the drive thru--I mean, where else are you gonna go for fast food?

I think, when it boils down to it, people are always willing to pay for security, so there may as well be competition to provide the best service possible.  As in the case of the monostatism, they can essentially do what they want without fear that another government will out perform them.  They can provide a terrible service and charge out the butt to use it; since they own the military, they can also force you to pay for their service, whether you want it or not.  It's a pretty ugly system that we have now, if you ask me, full of bullying and corruption.

Why?

Private security businesses and arbitrators (which take the place of police and the justice system.)  This video can explain it quite well.

Edit:  Whups, goofed up on the URL

While I'm waiting for you to answer my question, I'll answer yours. The reason it is more profitable is because politicians are cheaper to buy than land. If you had to pay the landowners damages for polluting their land, it would be much more expensive.

Can I please get a divorce?

Where I live, my taxes pay for this.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/07/9272989-firefighters-let-home-burn-over-75-fee-again?lite

Imagine all over the country, the people who lost their house, or almost lost their house due to fire. How much of the population would actually pay 'donations' to the fire department?