31 May 09
Originally posted by FMFYes. Any time, big or small, when I am forced to pay for something, or do something I would not do simply because it is rational to do so, then that force has diminished my liberty.
And this is part of your definition of "lack of freedom"?
It isn't a question of whether the mandated activity or goal is good, bad or indifferent. If it is not my choice, someone else is confiscating my money and deciding what to do with it. It is the same as if a crackhead robs me to support his or her habit. To them my money is better spent on their habit. To me, it is simply theft.
This is especially true when the money is a direct transfer from one group to another unrelated group, such as from smokers to children's health care. You might be able to make a case for smoker's money paying for care of smoker's ailments, or cessation programs.
31 May 09
Originally posted by normbenignHow much money would you have absent an economic system with legal enforcement of contracts, a currency, etc. etc. etc.?
Yes. Any time, big or small, when I am forced to pay for something, or do something I would not do simply because it is rational to do so, then that force has diminished my liberty.
It isn't a question of whether the mandated activity or goal is good, bad or indifferent. If it is not my choice, someone else is confiscating my money and deciding what ...[text shortened]... make a case for smoker's money paying for care of smoker's ailments, or cessation programs.
31 May 09
Originally posted by StTito"Those children are going to run the country some day."
Those children are going to run the country some day. So you bet your behind that you should pay taxes for them. In a civilized society we pay for things we may not use and likewise for others who may have to pay for you. It is called the real world.
No most will end up dependent on public assistance of some kind, with the collectivist ideas you espouse.
"So you bet your behind that you should pay taxes for them."
As opposed to their parents doing so?
"In a civilized society we pay for things we may not use and likewise for others who may have to pay for you. It is called the real world."
The word you were looking for when you used "civilized" was collectivist, socialist, or Marxist. It is entirely possible and desirable for a civilized society to be personally, individually responsible.
New Hampshire is as civilized as New York with considerably lower taxation, and considerably less Marxist interference with liberty.
Arguing that it is the "real world", would you have made that argument regarding Hitler's processing of Jews through the ovens? A lot of "real world" things are not desirable or even moral.
31 May 09
Originally posted by no1marauderLegal enforcement of contracts, and coining of money are among the Article one, section 8 definitions of Constitutional duties. The crap that the State of New York, and the current alphabet soup of Federal agencies are not part of that.
How much money would you have absent an economic system with legal enforcement of contracts, a currency, etc. etc. etc.?
Government is necessary, but a lot of it we have isn't.
31 May 09
Originally posted by UllrThis is a seemingly rational argument for public education, however it ignores the moral risk accompanying all socialism and monopoly enterprises.
I think you've chosen a bad example to bolster your argument. One of the things that I think is important for any nation to try to accomplish is a basic level of education for all its young citizens. If it were simply left up to the parents ability to pay then there is no doubt that many of the poor would not have access to quality education and that would ta ...[text shortened]... Sadly this is not the case so the task becomes the responsibility of society as it should be.
The public education system is really pushing the United States toward being a third world nation of intellectually incurious and uninformed. Much of this is intentional to make citizens more pliable and accepting of Statism.
Poor and minorities are the worst victims of public education.
31 May 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAccess is improved by liberty. Good health care, and good education will be improved by economic liberty, and diminished by Marxist collectivism.
Do access to good education and health care and good infrastructure not increase one's economic liberty?
Are you willing to argue that New York has the best schools?
31 May 09
Originally posted by normbenignThat's a pathetic dodge. The taxing power is an enumerated power, too. And the "police powers" of the States is unquestionably sufficient to allow a State to tax whatever items it pleases at whatever rates it desires.
Legal enforcement of contracts, and coining of money are among the Article one, section 8 definitions of Constitutional duties. The crap that the State of New York, and the current alphabet soup of Federal agencies are not part of that.
Government is necessary, but a lot of it we have isn't.
The claim that "taxes are theft" is ridiculous since absent a government there would be no way to accumulate wealth in any significant degree. And taxes are set by democratically elected bodies which presumably reflect the will of the majority. So you and anybody else can attempt to change the tax laws by the democratic process. But the claim that it is somehow illegitimate for a system that provides the very basis of wealth to allocate how to pay for that system and what the majority feel are desirable components of it by taxation is silly.
31 May 09
Originally posted by no1marauderHardly. There were Constitutional limitations on taxation, and clearly the reason for the revolution against England was excessive taxation, without representation.
That's a pathetic dodge. The taxing power is an enumerated power, too. And the "police powers" of the States is unquestionably sufficient to allow a State to tax whatever items it pleases at whatever rates it desires.
The claim that "taxes are theft" is ridiculous since absent a government there would be no way to accumulate wealth in any si ...[text shortened]... that system and what the majority feel are desirable components of it by taxation is silly.
It is absurd to say that we ought to just accept what ever levels are imposed. Clearly, some are counter productive, and at the State level, I don't much care as we can vote with our feet, and moving vans, as apparently is happening in New York.
31 May 09
Originally posted by normbenign"Marxist"?
"Those children are going to run the country some day."
No most will end up dependent on public assistance of some kind, with the collectivist ideas you espouse.
"So you bet your behind that you should pay taxes for them."
As opposed to their parents doing so?
"In a civilized society we pay for things we may not use and likewise for others who ...[text shortened]... s through the ovens? A lot of "real world" things are not desirable or even moral.
You can't be serious.
31 May 09
Originally posted by normbenignNon sequitur. I was responding to your claim that "taxes are theft" which is ridiculous. I never said you have to "accept what ever levels [of taxes] are imposed"; in fact, I specifically said you can use the democratic process like anybody else.
Hardly. There were Constitutional limitations on taxation, and clearly the reason for the revolution against England was excessive taxation, without representation.
It is absurd to say that we ought to just accept what ever levels are imposed. Clearly, some are counter productive, and at the State level, I don't much care as we can vote with our feet, and moving vans, as apparently is happening in New York.
Let's get serious.
31 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderHe is deadly serious. As he was when he said that Obama and the Nazis were kindred spirits.
"Marxist"? You can't be serious.
Originally posted by normbenign
Government is necessary, but a lot of it we have isn't.
Isn't this where democracy comes in? The only viable decision making mechanism we have at our disposal. Ancestor worship, in the form of second guessing the "intentions" of a group of slave owning men living during the industrial revolution whose environment bore scarce resemblence to the cultures, societies and economies of today - an obsession comparable with fundamentalist Islam or Christianity - is surely no kind of mechanism at all?
31 May 09
Originally posted by FMFWell, I don't dismiss the theory of government the Framers had as contemptuously as you do. A limited government is generally better.
He is deadly serious. As he was when he said that Obama and the Nazis were kindred spirits.
Originally posted by normbenign
[b]Government is necessary, but a lot of it we have isn't.
Isn't this where democracy comes in? The only viable decision making mechanism we have at our disposal. Ancestor worship, in the form of second guessing the "inten ...[text shortened]... omparable with fundamentalist Islam or Christianity - is surely no kind of mechanism at all?[/b]
The devil is in the details of course.
31 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI wasn't inculcated with it as I grew up. Nor was I brought up equating lower tax and the private-wealth-public-squalor dichotomy with increased freedom. Indeed, I was spared the notions of manifest destiny and the not-supported-by-the-statistics American Dream too.
Well, I don't dismiss the theory of government the Framers had as contemptuously as you do. A limited government is generally better.
The devil is in the details of course.
31 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYou'd do well to actually read some of the works of Madison and Paine. Paine, in fact, proposed a system with many of the attributes of the modern welfare state in the second part of The Rights of Man.
I wasn't inculcated with it as I grew up. Nor was I brought up equating lower tax with increased freedom. Indeed, I was spared the notions of manifest destiny and the not-supported-by-the-statistics American Dream too.
The rest of your post is a non sequitur.