Socialist USA - Why do people support?

The BBQ Pit
101

Since I have expressed no view on this topic, other than a desire to see an actual argument put forth, you really have no idea what my “position” actually is. This is more whiny drivel from you, however.

Thank you for confirming my view that this was actually a Pit rant with an OP incapable of maintaining an actual debate.
(For those who are interested in actually debating the issue, there is currently an actual discussion on the topic being carried on (with greater or lesser efficacy, depending on the participant) in GD in the thread Political Compass #53: Charity is better than social security.)

102

I’m not sure that cascading logical fallacies coming from all directions constitutes an “actual argument” either, does it? I mean, I picked three easily at random, all from people of whom I think very highly.

Mange said: “Why should I pay taxes that go toward maintaining a public fire and rescue service? My house is not currently on fire.” The question assumes that involuntary taxation is the only way to fund a public fire and rescue service. The implication is that if I don’t pay my taxes, then when my house catches on fire, there will be no one to put it out.

Poly said: “If no one but you is entitled to the fruits of your labor, then that must apply to me as well. Would you kindly remit my share of the cost of your education, figured under GAAP?” The question assumes that the OP is the one who collected school taxes from Poly, and therefore owes them back to him. If you find that your house’s safe was robbed, and the thief went on a shopping spree, you don’t get your money back from the stores where he spent his loot.

And even Sentient said: “No, you accrued it, perhaps by economically coercing those with far less bargaining power than you into working for you so that they did not starve.” That’s a more subtle fallacy. The comment assumes no alternative to insitutionalized economic means. It assumes that the Vanderbilts have always existed as wealth whores, and ignores that Cornelius arose from poverty and parlayed paper route money into an economic empire. It wrongly isolates two individuals from the whole of society, one having economic power over the other.

That’s the nature of such hypotheticals. You might likely call Sentient’s comment an argument, while calling an alternate hypothetical an evasion. For example, suppose I hypothesize that there exist entrepreneurs who capitalize on the alleged economic coercion of Sentient’s villain — much like Henry Ford did when he unilaterally increased wages and benefits in order to attract workers who were less likely to leave. The direct result was an increase in the standard of living for his employees and adjustments by his competition to meet or exceed what he offered.

Sentient’s hypothetical assumes that a worker has no choice but to work for the villain or starve. Well quite naturally, it we’re allowed to hypothesize our own conclusion as our premise, we will win the argument.

103

Good to see you again, BTW.

104

And you too! Almost anyone does pretty well with his own “perhaps”. But in the case of people with your intellectual acumen, I’m more interested in seeing how you handle the “perhaps not”.

105

Gah, I finally ponied up the dough to be a subscriber JUST so I could say this.

Read Icculus, have you ever read the short story “Coventry”, by Robert Heinlein? (it’s called that in my copy of Revolt in 2100, anyway)

That should be required reading for anyone who disagrees with the social contract.

Anyway, my actual thoughts on your position (And I’m a certified minarchist libertarian, mind you):

There are currently no places where there is not a social contract in force, with the taxes and regulation which go along with it.
The United States currently possesses an internationally- and interally-recognized claim (at least by the majority) to the land areas in which it enforces it’s government/social contract, of which you currently are a member (by birth, because that’s part and parcel of the contract as applied to your parents–children of citizens are citizens).

If you think this is not fair, I advise you to go to a location where there IS no social contract. Afghanistan, Somalia in some areas, etc. If this is not acceptable, then I suggest you declare your absolute right to remove yourself from the social contract you are currently in while remaining in your place.

However, I don’t think you could afford to pay for the “service” of preventing a nation-state you’ve annoyed from coming to steal your tax dollars.

The simple and plain fact is that by and large, the service you’re paying for with your tax dollars is “I choose to enjoy the protections of the United States”. If you can’t live with that, then you have to either find a place where the prevailing government is willing to protect you from other nasty coercive nation-states for no money, or you have to figure out how to hold off the united states itself. Good luck buying THAT on $30k/yr.

By the way…my future wife and I are on $34k a year, and we’ve got a new car and eat steak once a week. And there’s ALWAYS ice cream. Maybe your choices need work before your government does.

106

My husband and I live on about a third of that a year. If we’re careful, we can afford steak and ice cream.

We’re working on bettering our situation, the problem is that it’s hard in an economically depressed area like the one we’re in. I don’t take advantage of services like food stamps or Medicare or anything like that, but I have no problem that a portion of my 13,000/year goes towards it. Yeah, I’m technically “under the poverty line” but there are people doing worse than I am. I probably would have a bit more disposable income if I wasn’t taxed…but I live here. I okay the social contract by voting.

I would like to see a coherent argument from the OP about how a non-taxed state would work. I haven’t seen it yet.

107

The US itself was one. It functioned for quite a long time without direct taxes of any kind, even making it through a civil war. The Constitution prohibited them.

108

Yeah.
But try sustaining a competative Air Force or nuclear arsenal that way. :dubious:

109

Oh, I think government could trim a thing or two here and there.

110

I suspect that, since I live in a huge university town with astronomical housing/transportation costs and a slowly dwindling economy, that cost-of-living-wise I’m not that much better off than you guys are.

I also suspect we’re in total agreement with regards to the original poster.

111

Careful, you’re about to turn me into a Libertarian.

Daniel

112

Forget a nuclear arsenal. How about freeways?

113

What Left Hand of Dorkness just said. :smiley:

114

Indeed! :slight_smile:

Now, if you’d mentioned libraries, or socialized medicine, or education, or minimum wage, or environmental protection laws, or anti-discrimination laws–then I’d be on board. But freeways, well, they ain’t the most compelling case.

Still better than nuclear weapons, though.

Daniel

115

You turned into a socialist in your absence?

116

No, but I did turn into a worker. :slight_smile:

117

So then, why are their direct taxes now if the Constitution prohibits it? Which clause exactly are you referring to?

Furthermore, how do you treat societal problems without taxes? I mean in regards to the poor and/or the sick, including the mentally ill. I really don’t think that privatization is going to work there–I’ve seen it a little in the hospitals here and it’s growing to be a mess.

118

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9:

*No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. *

Amendment 16 (ratified in 1913)

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

It’s a mess anyway. Homeless people are dying in the streets. Housing is a crisis from Canada to France. Government doesn’t cater to the helpless. It caters to the strong — those who have the political clout to help elect governors. Its only interest is political expediency. Johnson declared a War on Poverty 40 years ago. It’s having about the same success as the War on Drugs. Now we have a War on Terror. God help us.

119

Damn, Lib, It is good to see you back here, I was starting to miss you.

120

Buh? The amendment clearly states that income taxes may be levied by the state. Which makes the levying of income taxes constitutional. What am I missing?

I’m not good at picking my logical fallacies, but how does the fact that the government programs you object to are not perfectly effective lead to the conclusion that the complete abolition of these government programs would be preferable?

Noone’s postulating that things are perfect, but only that the situation as it is today is dramatically preferable to no education, healthcare or housing for those unable to afford it, as in the 19th century and most previous times. How is your ideal society different to this 19th century model?