Quote Originally Posted by Brenngun View Post
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?





Quote Originally Posted by Brenngun View Post
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.