Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:58:32 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
C576653@ihatespamCCLABS.MISSOURI.EDU
|
Viewed:
|
812 times
|
| |
|
|
Jeff Stembel wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Thomas Main wrote:
> >
> > > Government, on the other hand, is here to
> > > serve the people.
> >
> > No, the proper role of government is to secure the rights of people, not
> > serve them with free goods. You seem to have these two points completely
> > reversed.
>
> I don't remember seeing anything about "free". And the government *is* here to
> serve the people. What do you call road building/maintenance? A "right"?
> Everything the government does is funded by the Taxpayers, hence our obligation
> to pay taxes. If you don't think you should have to pay taxes, stop using
> everything that is funded by the government.
That's ridiculous.
First, if I do stop using these government "services" (as if that were
possible) would I then be free of a tax obligation? For the answer, ask
home-owners who send their kids to private schools (like me) because
public schools are inadequate. I would jump at the chance if it were possible.
Second, it's not possible. In our society I don't have the option of
choosing not to 'contract' with the government for provision of these
services. I would choose whoever provided the best contract terms if
that were an option. It may be the government for some things, and not
for others.
Third, what do you mean about the roads thing being a right? Are you
implying that Larry thinks it's a right (which I feel quite safe in
saying is wildly incorrect), or are you suggesting that it actually is
(which I also feel safe in saying is wildly incorrect)?
Fourth, your logic is: organization X pays for service Y with person Z's
money, thus person Z is obligated to continue supporting organization X.
Given that logic, once a junky steals toll way quarters from your car
to buy his next dose of H, you are obligated to continue supplying him
petty change. I particularly like this analogy, because you get to keep
fixing the window that he bashes in each night which alludes to the
waste inherent in the way that our federal government does anything.
Finally, why do you have the 'right' to tell me how to spend the money
that I work hard to earn? Isn't that what killed the USSR? The more of
my money you strip away for any reason, the more you incent me to work
less, to innovate less, to add value to my surrounding economic
environment. This is BAD...not good.
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
