Thread: The world I would love to live in.

Originally Posted by Brenngun

Thanks for your response. I wouldn't presume to speak for you but, should I assume you feel these services are still actually needed by some people but you shouldn't have to contribute to covering the costs? If not please correct me. If so then how would you propose covering the cost? Should it be the sole responsibility of the individual, parent or guardian? I'm sure you're aware of the rising health care costs in the US. What if they can't meet the burden? Should the care providers be forced to reduce their billings? What about the hospitals, insurance, drug or medical equipment companies? Should they have to reduce their prices to make it more affordable? If this requirement is not publically funded and no one steps up to provide it for free or at vastly reduced costs, look ahead and tell me what you think the likely result would be. Could it become "chaotic" and have a negative impact on your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? If there's even a slight chance of that, wouldn't you consider it money well spent?

Good questions all, but I don't necessarily have answers. It's apparent to me though that the current solutions are compromising the original intent of the law, if you agree that the purpose of law is to protect property. Forcibly taking property from one without fair compensation, in order to give to another, is usually called theft, and seems to me to be a betrayal of the purpose of the law. Unless you believe the purpose of laws are to inflict harm upon those who elect legislators who make the laws. To me, that makes no sense, unless the purpose is to make laws that are expedient to any solution regardless of effect on the people. But once again, that also seems to go against the purpose of laws assuming you believe laws are there to protect and not harm. I suppose it also depends on your definition of harm. If you don't mind having your property taken from you, in other words you feel that your property is going to a good cause, then you might not feel harmed by the taking. But then why the need for a law forcing the taking of property when you can voluntarily give your property to the cause without coercion? In other words charity. And just because no one will voluntarily pony up and give to the cause, is that justification to steal? In your mind is there ever a justification to steal? Just because something is called a "tax" does that fool you into believing the "tax" is not really a theft? Do you know the difference? Do you believe solutions should avoid harming at all cost? Or do you believe that the ends always justify the means regardless of harm or burden. Consider the rule in medicine of "First do no harm." Should legislators be held to the same standard?

Originally Posted by Brenngun

But what if some people don't agree with you. What if they don't gladly pay for them? What if they feel they can easy do it themselves and are also convinced that it will not be chaotic or inefficient. Should they be allowed to opt out because of this? Some people who currently pay taxes will tell you they don't receive the same level of service that others receive. They don't get "exactly what they paid for". Is that fair for them? Although you may feel you aren't being "forced to buy anything" I'd submit to you that in fact you are. The very fact that your taxes pay for these services means you've bought them. Granted you don't hand the police officer standing outside the grocery store a $20 bill as you leave with your newly acquired baby food but make no mistake the above transaction is the very definition per Webster of a purchase: "to get (something) by paying money for it". If you don't think you're being forced then try an experiment. Stop filing and paying your taxes.

Who wouldn't gladly pay their share for national defense, police and fire services, roads maintenance, etc. all the things that the Federal and State Constitutions authorize? Anyone who thinks these things could be done privately needs to seriously rethink the issue. In fact, prior to the federal constitution, under the Articles of Confederation, the states were attempting to do many of these things individually, and it wasn't working too well. Therefore creating a strong case for federalism which a majority of states eventually agreed to and ratified.

As to your last sentence, if you stopped paying your taxes you'd be in trouble, of course. But not all of your taxes paid are returned to you as a service. Some of that money pays for things having nothing to do with you. I make too much money to qualify for EBT, food stamps, Affordable Care Act subsidization, Medicaid, etc. But I certainly contribute as a tax payer to those programs. It's still theft no matter how you cut it. Social Security? Am I getting the ROI I would have gotten had I invested on my own? Probably not even close. The loss in returns, not due to risk but due to government intervention, is probably an SEC violation at least, under any other circumstance. Placing government in between you and those who benefit from your money, or causing you to loose money makes it no less of a theft or violation. Rationalizing it however you want changes nothing.

Originally Posted by honedright

Good questions all, but I don't necessarily have answers. It's apparent to me though that the current solutions are compromising the original intent of the law, if you agree that the purpose of law is to protect property. Forcibly taking property from one without fair compensation, in order to give to another, is usually called theft, and seems to me to be a betrayal of the purpose of the law.

May be when talking about original intent we ought to go to the origins.
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

The affected also thought it was theft and unfair, even went so far to take up arms but that didn't matter much.

You may not like everything that taxes are spent on, but that's true about every single person (e.g. I know a number of people who do not pay gladly for what they consider out of control military spending). The only valid way to determine what is OK and what isn't is the supreme court and they have already spoken on the issues you keep bringing up.
Like it or not this is the process, and the people who make the determination are there as a result of how the american people have voted.

honedright,
I sincerely hope i am never forced to live in the sort of society that you seem to want, where everyone only pays for and looks after their own interests.
I am going to make a presumption that not one member of your family has ever claimed any sort of assistance from the government to assist them financially, and i also assume that you wont be either, and that you pay for ALLof your own medical bils etc out of your own pocket, i truely hope that one day you dont find yourself in need of such assistance but if you ever do i am almost 100% positive you will be glad of it, well unless you want your family eating from rubbish bins and living under cardboard.

As a society it is that societies responsiblity to extend assistance to those in need of it, as a child of a single mother i grew up in council housing and benefitted from the fact that my mothers meagre income was bolstered by various government benefits. If i had grown up in the sort of society that you seem to favour i would probably be unskilled and potentially homeless.

I now earn very good money and pay a very large amount of tax, and i dont begrudge it at all.
You could always move to a country that doesnt tax so highly and see how you like the lifestyle there.

Regards ed

Originally Posted by edhewitt

honedright,
I sincerely hope i am never forced to live in the sort of society that you seem to want, where everyone only pays for and looks after their own interests.
I am going to make a presumption that not one member of your family has ever claimed any sort of assistance from the government to assist them financially, and i also assume that you wont be either, and that you pay for ALLof your own medical bils etc out of your own pocket, i truely hope that one day you dont find yourself in need of such assistance but if you ever do i am almost 100% positive you will be glad of it, well unless you want your family eating from rubbish bins and living under cardboard.

As a society it is that societies responsiblity to extend assistance to those in need of it, as a child of a single mother i grew up in council housing and benefitted from the fact that my mothers meagre income was bolstered by various government benefits. If i had grown up in the sort of society that you seem to favour i would probably be unskilled and potentially homeless.

I now earn very good money and pay a very large amount of tax, and i dont begrudge it at all.
You could always move to a country that doesnt tax so highly and see how you like the lifestyle there.

Regards ed

You make a false argument because no one is forced to live in America, and America is one of, if not the most, charitable nations in the world. There is no evidence that here everyone just looks out for their own interests and to the detriment of anyone else, in fact there is much to the contrary. And nothing I said suggests that I propose such a state of living. All that I have suggested is a search for ways and means of helping those in need without relying on acts of immorality. You and some of your supporters, on the other hand, are suggesting that there is no other way to repair society but through the strong arm taking and redistribution of others peoples property against their will. Is it because the good intentions of the left are creating, via unintended consequences, an expanding class of welfare dependents to the point where voluntary charity can no longer meet the needs of those less fortunate? And common sense dictates that more of the same will continue to only exacerbate the problem. Over 80 years of progressive "do good" policy from the "New Deal" to the "Great Society" and now "Hope and Change" seem to prove my theory as things seem to be getting worse and not better.

"You could always move to a country that doesnt tax so highly and see how you like the lifestyle there." Or I could stay here and do my part to end the insanity that left wing progressives have started. What was it that Burke said? Something about the only requirement for evil to exist is for good men to do nothing. So thanks for the advice, but no thanks.

Originally Posted by honedright

You make a false argument because no one is forced to live in America, and America is one of, if not the most, charitable nations in the world. There is no evidence that here everyone just looks out for their own interests and to the detriment of anyone else, in fact there is much to the contrary. And nothing I said suggests that I propose such a state of living. All that I have suggested is a search for ways and means of helping those in need without relying on acts of immorality. You and some of your supporters, on the other hand, are suggesting that there is no other way to repair society but through the strong arm taking and redistribution of others peoples property against their will. Is it because the good intentions of the left are creating, via unintended consequences, an expanding class of welfare dependents to the point where voluntary charity can no longer meet the needs of those less fortunate? And common sense dictates that more of the same will continue to only exacerbate the problem. Over 80 years of progressive "do good" policy from the "New Deal" to the "Great Society" and now "Hope and Change" seem to prove my theory as things seem to be getting worse and not better.

"You could always move to a country that doesnt tax so highly and see how you like the lifestyle there." Or I could stay here and do my part to end the insanity that left wing progressives have started. What was it that Burke said? Something about the only requirement for evil to exist is for good men to do nothing. So thanks for the advice, but no thanks.

So how do you propose that these in need are assisted then? I suppose all companies could be nationalised with the profit going to the government to do with as required. Your wages adjusted to you post tax income and then not charge you any tax on the remainder.
Firstly I sho I lo clarify that I grew up in the uk, and am now living in Australia, but my opinion of your ideal society would be equally abhorrent to me wherever I lived.
Secondly I did not bring into question the generosity or otherwise of present day America, my comments were addressing your ideas.

Originally Posted by edhewitt

So how do you propose that these in need are assisted then? I suppose all companies could be nationalised with the profit going to the government to do with as required. Your wages adjusted to you post tax income and then not charge you any tax on the remainder.
Firstly I sho I lo clarify that I grew up in the uk, and am now living in Australia, but my opinion of your ideal society would be equally abhorrent to me wherever I lived.
Secondly I did not bring into question the generosity or otherwise of present day America, my comments were addressing your ideas.

"So how do you propose that these in need are assisted then?" - Just like any problem, first we have to discover the cause of the problem then decide on the cure.

So in Australia your natural right to defend your life, life itself being a natural right worth defending, has been infringed upon by your government by means that I'm not allowed to discuss on SRP. Do you not find that policy abhorrent? Do you think a government that thinks so little of it's citizens to relegate them to the status of helpless and dependent victims is part of an ideal society?

Originally Posted by honedright

"So how do you propose that these in need are assisted then?" - Just like any problem, first we have to discover the cause of the problem then decide on the cure.

So in Australia your natural right to defend your life, life itself being a natural right worth defending, has been infringed upon by your government by means that I'm not allowed to discuss on SRP. Do you not find that policy abhorrent? Do you think a government that thinks so little of it's citizens to relegate them to the status of helpless and dependent victims is part of an ideal society?

Sorry, what? I am neither helpless nor dependant nor a victim. I don't feel a pressing need to possess a firearm, which is what I assume you mean, and I don't really want to live somewhere where I do.

Originally Posted by honedright

Good questions all, but I don't necessarily have answers. It's apparent to me though that the current solutions are compromising the original intent of the law, if you agree that the purpose of law is to protect property. Forcibly taking property from one without fair compensation, in order to give to another, is usually called theft, and seems to me to be a betrayal of the purpose of the law. Unless you believe the purpose of laws are to inflict harm upon those who elect legislators who make the laws. To me, that makes no sense, unless the purpose is to make laws that are expedient to any solution regardless of effect on the people. But once again, that also seems to go against the purpose of laws assuming you believe laws are there to protect and not harm. I suppose it also depends on your definition of harm. If you don't mind having your property taken from you, in other words you feel that your property is going to a good cause, then you might not feel harmed by the taking. But then why the need for a law forcing the taking of property when you can voluntarily give your property to the cause without coercion? In other words charity. And just because no one will voluntarily pony up and give to the cause, is that justification to steal? In your mind is there ever a justification to steal? Just because something is called a "tax" does that fool you into believing the "tax" is not really a theft? Do you know the difference? Do you believe solutions should avoid harming at all cost? Or do you believe that the ends always justify the means regardless of harm or burden. Consider the rule in medicine of "First do no harm." Should legislators be held to the same standard?

Who wouldn't gladly pay their share for national defense, police and fire services, roads maintenance, etc. all the things that the Federal and State Constitutions authorize? Anyone who thinks these things could be done privately needs to seriously rethink the issue. In fact, prior to the federal constitution, under the Articles of Confederation, the states were attempting to do many of these things individually, and it wasn't working too well. Therefore creating a strong case for federalism which a majority of states eventually agreed to and ratified.

As to your last sentence, if you stopped paying your taxes you'd be in trouble, of course. But not all of your taxes paid are returned to you as a service. Some of that money pays for things having nothing to do with you. I make too much money to qualify for EBT, food stamps, Affordable Care Act subsidization, Medicaid, etc. But I certainly contribute as a tax payer to those programs. It's still theft no matter how you cut it. Social Security? Am I getting the ROI I would have gotten had I invested on my own? Probably not even close. The loss in returns, not due to risk but due to government intervention, is probably an SEC violation at least, under any other circumstance. Placing government in between you and those who benefit from your money, or causing you to loose money makes it no less of a theft or violation. Rationalizing it however you want changes nothing.

You use a somewhat interesting but inconsistent definition of "stealing". When applied to the process of government tax collection and spending you believe if your taxes are spent on services you personally agree with then the taxes were collected legally. Conversely if spent on services you disagree with they magically become illegal. The act of spending doesn't determine the legality of the assessment and collection process. Laws do. Specifically tax law. Rationalizing it as a theft however you want doesn't change the fact that it is not theft.

I'd be the first to say that not all tax dollars are spent wisely. EBT, food stamps, Affordable Care Act subsidization, Medicaid, etc however can actually be considered a service regardless of your personal usage. Imagine the social ramifications of not having these programs. What's the likely result? Increased unrest? Crime? Desperation leads normally law abiding people to cross socially acceptable lines. Some may have a direct affect on you personally. If your tax dollars help to keep this from happening would you still consider if theft or would you rather spend more tax dollars on increased policing hoping to never hear the sound of breaking glass?

Originally Posted by Brenngun

You use a somewhat interesting but inconsistent definition of "stealing". When applied to the process of government tax collection and spending you believe if your taxes are spent on services you personally agree with then the taxes were collected legally. Conversely if spent on services you disagree with they magically become illegal. The act of spending doesn't determine the legality of the assessment and collection process. Laws do. Specifically tax law. Rationalizing it as a theft however you want doesn't change the fact that it is not theft.

I'd be the first to say that not all tax dollars are spent wisely. EBT, food stamps, Affordable Care Act subsidization, Medicaid, etc however can actually be considered a service regardless of your personal usage. Imagine the social ramifications of not having these programs. What's the likely result? Increased unrest? Crime? Desperation leads normally law abiding people to cross socially acceptable lines. Some may have a direct affect on you personally. If your tax dollars help to keep this from happening would you still consider if theft or would you rather spend more tax dollars on increased policing hoping to never hear the sound of breaking glass?

From reading your post it appears you've either misread or misunderstood by posts. My belief on taxation has nothing to do with whether or not I, or anyone else, agrees with a service. In other words you think I'm saying, 'it's OK to take my wallet if you're going to feed your kids, but not OK if you're just going to buy booze for yourself' as though there are acceptable and unacceptable conditions for taking my wallet! That is a completely bogus argument. You've twisted the emphasis away from the wrong, the taking of the wallet, and placed the emphasis on what the wallet would be used for. That was not my argument at all!

My argument is that a theft is a theft is a theft regardless of how the proceeds of the theft are used. You seem unable to recognize what theft is, and have learned to rationalize and justify theft, just so long as YOU agree with the the reasoning for the theft. You are the one arguing that agreeing, or disagreeing, is the issue. You make an argument that thieves should be able to keep stolen property as long as the property is spent wisely ("I'd be the first to say that not all tax dollars are spent wisely. EBT, food stamps, Affordable Care Act subsidization, Medicaid, etc however can actually be considered a service regardless of your personal usage."). Therefore, had John Dillinger decided to wisely redistribute the proceeds from his bank robberies, and give back the money to those he deemed needful in his community, he should have been considered a hero and not a criminal. Your argument seems to support this. As long as a majority consensus agrees (votes) that under certain circumstances it's OK to take other peoples property (theft) and give it away to other people (redistribute) then hey, it's no longer theft, it's wise spending! What a bunch of sophist hogwash!

You then argue a either or "lesser of two evils" rational of 'you better let us pick your pockets, or worse things will happen!' As though being held hostage under threat is an acceptable alternative to finding solutions that involve no corruption. And this you call "progress."

You know the old saying "your entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts". You have conveniently altered the term theft to define your own objectives and then go from there. Most would not agree with you. Maybe that's the tea party line of reasoning, I don't know.

It's ain't mainstream.