Subject:
|
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:20:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
914 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
>
> > > I would rather that people have the ability to trick me losing my money than
> > > to take it from me at gunpoint. Isn't that how everyone would answer?
> >
> > I presume you're talking about the government in the latter case, but can
> > you rephrase that without the "at gunpoint" phrase? There's no initiation
> > of force involved; it's simple enforcement of social contract. You may
> > disagree with the contract, but until you exit from it, you are subject to it.
>
> False. Contracts are things agreed to by both parties. I was never given a
> choice to reject taxes and the attendant benefits. I am no more _morally_
> bound by this "social contract" than were the Africans enslaved in the south
> through their "social contract." Do you fault them for railing at their lot?
I think there's a big difference b/w the two--in your case, the services you
receive via 'your tax dollar' aid you as well as your fellow man. Sure you
were 'born into' the agreement, or 'moved into' the agreement when you
become a citizen of your country, but the benefits of the agreement are
apparent. Slavery, otoh, has no such benefits for the slave. So unless
there is a clause added to your constitution that a person can forego *ever*
using public roads, public works, public whatever, and will never reap any
benefit from the gov't, then yes, you don't have to pay taxes--but then you
don't get what those tax dollars pay for, either.
Sure some tax dollars are wastefully spent, but you can't say *all* tax
dollars are wastefully spent--my trash is collected, my lights come on, my
roads are there for me to use, parks are there, and mostly clean, etc.
> > > And there is something to be said for the notion of going back to a simpler
> > > government with the knowledge that we have gained since those times and • adding
> > > on the needed layers of complexity with purpose rather than as a series of ad
> > > hoc measures.
> >
> > Okay, but who gets to decide which measures are necessary and which are not?
>
> I the great American tradition, I suppose we'd vote on representatives who
> would decide for us. Alternatively -- and preferably in my mind, now that we
> have the technology to enable this -- we could do away with the representative
> part of our democracy and vote individually.
"True" democracy--let *all* the people vote on *everything*. I can see no
greater way for idiotic ideas to become law.
>
> Even if we just reinstituted the same old system, all the hind-sight we've
> collected would help the legislators make more wise decisions, I think/hope.
That is all we can hope.
> Chris
Dave K
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
164 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
