There is an opt out actually, as describe in an earlier post.
You can’t argue against the specific example by citing taxation as a whole. I’m talking about a very specific instance, which you still haven’t addressed.
The argument that “everybody pays taxes, so just shut up about this blatant injustice” is completely unpersuasive.
Me being forced to give money to a radio station I don’t support and don’t listen to isn’t theft?
I’m a little surprised you want to do this, but I love this idea. I’m absolutely in favor of having a check box for NPR that works exactly like the presidential election campaign fund check box.
Surprised why?
It’s theft only if taxation is theft. If your position is that taxation is theft, it’s hilarious that you’re pointing to this as your exemplar. If your position is that taxation isn’t theft, then no, taxation isn’t theft.
Yes and yes. (Accepting your defining taxation as robbery.) Democratically elected representatives deciding how to allocate tax dollars and passing laws on our behalf, that some will agree with and some will disagree with, but that all must live with, is the American way. Why you hate America I do not know.
No. Because I beleive that the American system of representational democracy is a highly rational one whereas each taxpayer opting in or out on funding issues would be a very irrational one.
Oh, no reason. I think it’s a spectacular idea and I am fully in support of it.
Taxation is theft by any definition. You can make an argument that perhaps the fact that taxation is theft is trumped when the money is used for something an individual uses or is integral to the society. That argument falls flat when it comes to NPR.
What I find so bewildering is the fact that folks are so damn quick to ridicule others for objecting to this. If the government was going to start giving direct subsidies to a private media outlet you disagree with and don’t use, would you really be so vitriolic?
Well, there you have it.
But let’s still have the check box, pretty please.
You’re right, I’ve seen the error of my ways. If I’m not forced to give to a radio station I don’t listen to the republic will cease to be.
Sarcasm aside, you do realize that the import of your argument is that anybody who disagrees with one of the particular points that a democratic government pushes is un-American, right?
Is there anything the government does that you dislike? If yes, it would be hypocritical not to also label you as an America hater.
Really, how hard would it be to say “Yeah, I think America has a great governmental system, and I love NPR, but being forced to pay for it may not be the greatest idea.”?
You can say that as often as you like. As for me, I’ll say, “I love NPR. I’ve got no issue with tax money funding it in any part.”
And if the government decided to subsidize Breitbart?
Then I’d lobby against it. But I wouldn’t call it theft or claim that I should be able to opt out. The government does lots of things I don’t support personally, but I support a form of government that doesn’t always do things my way. I am one of the many, not an absolute monarch who gets her way in everything.
Okay, let’s get back on topic, everyone.
If anyone would like to continue the debate going in this thread right now, feel free to make a thread in Great Debates.
DSeid says I’m un-American for not supporting NPR. And apparently you think anybody who doesn’t want to support NPR must have a desire to be an absolute monarch. Very telling.
I’m going to assume you didn’t see my last note.
Stop posting about this in this topic. It’s hijacked this thread for a few days now.
You can talk about it and debate it if you wish, but please make your own topic about it.
I’ve donated to my local WNPR for a few years, and previous to that the wonderful WBUR. I love much of the local programming on WNPR, especially the Colin McEnroe Show and Where We Live. Faith Middleton I can live without. Given that NPR is one of the two stations programmed into my car radio, I think it’s worth it to pay a bit now and then.