Subject:
|
Re: Uhh, back to tax again ;-) (Was Re: Is space property?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Jan 2001 21:52:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
324 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote in message ...
>
> no moral 'right' to my earned income. The problem is that you assume that
> either a legal system or the market must be assigning the right to own
> property. I don't think that's so. In fact, I don't think that the market
> can assign rights at all. I'm not sure where that came from. I think the
> right to own stuff comes from our agreement that we can own stuff. The • problem
> is that we don't agree and you're willing to take my stuff (and kill me if • I
> try to stop you) whether or not we agree.
The _concept_ of ownership is an ancient one, certainly, but as far as I
know the laws of government are the only thing that _assign_ the right of
ownership.
>
> > > I have proven time and again that I willing to part with money • voluntarily
> > to
> > > support causes that I value even when there is no direct payoff for me.
> >
> > In the bigger scheme of things, so what! The population as a whole is
> > nowhere near charitable enough to run a country, and the free market can't
> > run the country because it ignores human rights. Oops! So we have the
> > forcible redistribution of wealth, or.... - well, what other alternatives
> > are there?!?
>
> How do you know that the population in general wouldn't manage the country • in
> an atmosphere of non-coersion? Can you cite failed examples?
Not exactly, but there are three damning pieces of evidence to support the
idea:
1) Communism relied on people living in limited prosperity for the good of
the whole. It can be said that it failed. ;-)
2) Countless gatherings of exceedingly wise and intellgient human beings
have time and again decided against having their country powered by
voluntary contribution. Throughout the world, throughout history.
3) The monumental greed displayed by countless human beings plainly seen in
the hugely successful, effective way it powers the economic market which in
turn helps manage the country via TAX! It has worked so unbelivably well in
so many countries for so many centuries, but, unfortunately it should be
scrapped because it's evil... ;-)
That brings up a very interesting point, actually: if there were no tax,
what on earth would the economic market's purpose BE? To allow people to
accumulate wealth they don't need? There's a laugh!
>
> in 2001. That sum will be spent as follows. I have characterized my • opinion
> of the various programs in parentheses.
>
> 23% Social Security (silly and mildly unethical)
> 19% non-defense discretionary (it ranges wildly)
> 16% National Defense (good, silly, and unethical)
> 12% Medicare (silly)
> 11% interest on debt (a necessary evil that should be larger)
> 07% Medicaid (unethical)
> 06% means-tested entitlements (these range from good to unethical)
> 06% federal retirement, unemployment, and farm subsidies (unethical through
> silly)
>
> These numbers and more details can be found at
> http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2001/guide02.html#Spending if you're
> interested.
No need - I'm pretty satisfied with the figures you state here - in fact,
I'm rather satisfied with the allocations on an ethical basis too. You,
however, call most of them "silly". I can only see one obvious reason for
this: a distorted view of society. This typically occurs due to media
influence which is horribly biased towards negative information.
There is a certain view of the society which goes like this:
"If people are poor then it's their own fault. They don't appreciate the
value of what money they might have, and waste it. Rich people, on the other
hand, have worked hard all their lives and can justly reap the benefits -
moreover, they are all too willing to spare some of their wealth for those
who truly need it."
This kind of bulls**t makes me want to throw up. Sorry about the vitriol,
but every time I'm in a discussion with a U.S. citizen ( it doesn't happen
with anyone else!) and I get even a _hint_ of a world view that even _tends_
towards something this distorted, I get angry, because it's WRONG.
Every thing that I have ever seen, every person I have ever met, every
expert I have ever heard, every scrap of unbiased information I have learnt
from the world around me, have lead me to two inescapable conclusions:
POOR = UNDERPRIVILEGED. These terms are virtually interchangeable - you know
why? Because virtually every poor person on this planet does not have the
privileges to be anything but poor! You only hear about the "dole bludger"
because he makes good news; real poor people aren't born with the
opportunities or the abilities to attain financial self-sufficiency.
RICH = GREEDY. A good number of people certainly worked hard to be rich. But
ALMOST NONE of them give their money away, unless they have more than they
could be bothered to spend. People were either born wealthy, or accumulate
it by being miserly and ungenerous. The people who are exceptions to this
rule may be loudly praised, but numerically they pale into utter
insignificance.
>
> I would point you to a short piece of fiction by Vernor Vinge called _The
> Ungoverned_ if you're interested in how I think government should work. • (and
> almost anything else he's written is worth a read too!)
Is that the one where voters could allocate what they wanted their tax spent
on, on their ballot? I've always wanted to read that story.
>
> OT: is it possible to respond point by point without point scoring? I've • tried
> to answer genuinely, not rack up wins, but I still approached answering on • a
> point by point basis.
It's more that some points can be overlooked to keep the whole thing down to
a manageable size, while still keeping the core points in the discussion. I
think that we're doing that quite well.
Cheers,
Paul
LUGNET member 164
http://www.geocities.com/doctorshnub/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
24 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
