I’ve been made a fool again.
I was looking for insight from the “smart” folks.
All I got, for the most part, was people saying that government coercion is OK,and it works great. Thanks.
I’ll see y’all at the United Socialists of America banquet,
RI
I think we know who to blame for that bit of poor decision-making.
No, you weren’t. You were hoping people would agree with you. When given thoughtful ideas to the contrary, you quote the entire post (unnecessary), then give a smartass reply that does absolutely nothing to address what was in the post.
I notice that you offer no support for your assertions that I highlighted. Why is this? If you are able to provide evidence and logical argumentation in support of them, please do so! That’s what this forum is about. If you are not, then let us know that you take these as axioms and simply will not give them up regardless of what we say. That will save us both a lot of trouble.
I think that’s exactly right. However, to give the benefit of the doubt, I’m trying to assume that the OP simply did not express the question clearly.
But…for the life of me, I can’t figure out what it might be. Is it just a rant against the XVIth amendment? Or, based on the link supplied (the no-treason.com link) an attempt at critiquing social contract theory? Can anyone reformulate it?
There. No quotes above my reply.
I could try to defend my assertions that you think you tore apart, but I won’t. It is bedtime for me. I’m merely a lurker, and we, the U.S.A. are the most charitable nation in the world. Straight Dope lurkers are those who generally realize the rate of charitable contribution across nations. Of course.
I just want to know why you think it is OK for the gov’t to steal from us?
There are people in need. Undoubtedly. That does not give anybody the right, elected official or not, to invade my wallet. It’s really that simple.
Good night,
Socialist Joe
OK, your income is far from astronomical. However, how do you know the guy in front of you doesn’t work? The gross annual income of someone working 40 hours a week at federal minimum wage is about $10,700. And, there will be deductions for FICA tax at least from that, and possibly he is paying state income tax. And, he may have kids to feed. If he is working, then I would say that is fair distribution of income. Now if he doesn’t work and just sits around watching TV all the time, I would agree that you have a point.
Read Icculus, you are clearly making a strong stand for a Libertarian position based on principles you hold dear. That is fine; there are many L/libertarians on this board who would be willing to support your position (even if they have not yet seen this thread to respond).
On the other hand, your overt hostility and failure to actually support your position will not persuade anyone to your position. I noted two specific claims that are simply silly:
and
The Federal tax (as bad as you perceive it to be) is about the lowest in the industrialized world (and it was already among the lowest before GWB began pushing through tax cuts in 2001). You may believe that any tax is exorbitant, but there is no rational basis for the claim you put forth.
The notion the “privatization is always better” is demonstrably false.
The privatized prisons that several states rushed to buy into have proven to be just as costly. less secure, and with no better rates of recidivism than the state prisons that they were supposed to cheaply replace.
The military has outsourced a substantial amount of the work that used to be handled by the quartermasters. Not only has fraud shown up on a massive scale (something that did occur on a lesser scale when it was kept in the military), but the contractors are failing to deliver the necessary matériel at rates far higher than we used to see when the military was overseeing the situation.
The military has also “outsourced” a number of other tasks and the results have been compromised security and unethical actions for which the perpetrators are not held accountable.
The privatized schools that have been established over the last decade, when they are held to the same admissions standards of accepting all children that the public schools are compelled to permit, have produced only marginally better results at somewhat higher costs. (Heck, in places where they have established trial voucher programs, the replacement schools have a mixed record–even after manipulating their entrance criteria.)
Can privatization be better? Sure. Sometimes. But the notion that handing over a public service to a person whose primary goal is making money somehow magically transforms that service provider into an exemplar of efficiency and golden performance is just wishful thinking.
“how do you know the guy in front of you doesn’t work?”
That is irrelevant. All I know is that he had a food stamp card.
When he swiped that card it mean that I, through a coercive government program, contributed to his dinner.
I did not, regardless of his situation, want to contribute to his dinner in that way.
It’s principle.
I’ll give to the needy, and that is true.
I’ll object to the government taking my money and giving it to the needy as they see fit.
That is theft, and it is wrong. My problem is that people don’t realize that.
Before I sleep, I must ask you…
What if I saw you on the street and forcefully took $100 out of your wallet? You would object. But, what if I told you that I was going to take that same $100 that I just stole, and spend it on a trip to the zoo for a group of orphans? You would still object because it is your money.
How is this scenario any different from (fill in the blank here) that is taken out of your paycheck?
It is not.
With all of your insistence on wanting to talk to intelligent people, I see a distinct lack of cogent arguments on your part as well.
Please show this “coercion”. Is it only “coercion” beyond a given amount of tax? Or is it a graduated process?
Privatization is always better?
Are you prepared to do without these government-subsidized or created infrastructure:
– Electricity
– The Internets
– The road system
– The railways
– The phone network
In fact, we’ve tried privatizing electricity, if I recall correctly. Worked out peachy keen did it not?
When you answer these, think about these:
If all taxes are “coercion”, is it better to live in a world where we live up to a strange ideal of “freedom”, but people die from malnutrition or easily preventable diseases? If you’d rather have some money go toward that, even at the expense of some reduction in your “freedom”, at what point does the coercion become illegal? Shouldn’t ALL taxes be illegal, by that reasoning? It’s taking away MY money after all.
Furthermore, is the right to keep the money you “earn” attributable to a naive idea of the originality of the source of value of labor? The capitalist system is easy to work with since it does approximate the correct value of one’s labor. But it’s by no means provable that one’s income does not result from illegal, coercive, or immoral activities, not to mention irrational labor pricing schemes.
My arguments are weak, but they shouldn’t even be arguments. In fact, they are not.
Nobody, except me, has any right to the fruits of my labor. I earn it, it is mine. Period.
There is nothing anyone can say to refute this. Forget your social responsibility nonsense. I’m responsible to myself and my family. Oh, wait, I’m being coerced to pay for others…
I should have posted this in the “Examples of Government Usurpation” forum, but I couldn’t find it here.
Good night and goodbye,
Joe Takemymoneyforwhoverneedsit
This is a lot of hooey. You’re only in a position to sell the fruits of your labour (or the labour itself) and purchase goods and services from others due to incredibly extensive social coordination and cooperation. You are receiving the benefits of the labour of a myriad of other people every time you step out your door, and there is no injustice in requiring that you pay for that benefit. You can claim you don’t owe nothin’ to nobody, but you’re dead wrong. And if you really want to play the “I’m entirely sufficient and don’t need anything from society”, I suggest you consider the words of Thomas Hobbes:
It’s not coersion if it’s democracy.
And I have an idea of what I’d like my democracy to look like, and it looks a lot like those frigid countries that enjoy a better quality of life than us.
Read Icculus, you don’t seem interested in actually discussing this with anybody- what were you hoping to accomplish here?
:rolleyes: Maybe not everybody thinks it’s theft.
I was in L.A. during the Enron charlie-foxtrot a few years ago. People who went with private power companies were paying through the nose. A FOAF in San Diego saw his power bill go from $50/month to $400/month.
I used DWP (Department of Water & Power) for my electricity. Being on city power, my bills remained about $50 every two months.
Incorrect conclusion.
People have hierarchies of values - self and family being the first priority. That doesn’t mean that valuing community and others doesn’t have a place. It indicates that government programs which cause people to act in an unnatural way to their values is a cause of alienation.
I’ll certainly agree with your conclusion. However, it is possible to draw multiple conclusions from a given statement. Evidently, you disagree with my opinion, which is well and good.
Don’t let the door smack your ass on the way out, eh…
I only disagree with your opinion if you think that people have to be coerced by the government to treat their fellow beings with compassion.
In my experience, government coercion more often than not causes those who are forced to give to hold the recipients in contempt - and visa versa.
Read Icculus, I’m one of those New Yorkers who lost her job because of 9/11. Orders fell off for the service my company was providing, and last hired, first fired (and I’d only been there for five months so no unemployment). I don’t see how my unemployment attains badly to me in any way, and there were tens of thousands of people in the same boat as me, some immigrants who were much worse off.
The City of New York runs workplace centers; I went to the one in the South Bronx, dutifully did all the paperwork, and got a grant of nearly $3,000 to obtain a graphic design certificate in Manhattan. In due time I was able to move from the receptionist job I was scraping by on to one which paid much much better and I have more than paid back that three grand in taxes and am much more productive. Do you think that the taxpayers of the city got a good investment with their $3,000?
And you still haven’t answered as to whether you drive on public roads, use libraries or parks, and/or send your kids to public schools.
Given that I pay over 50% of my income on Federal, State, Sales, SS, Medicare and Property taxes - I have more than paid for my usage of public assets.
Who is forcing you to live in the US? If you don’t like the political system here works, then leave. Note that of all welfare programs, short of Social Security, Food Stamps is amongst the most popular.