Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
Who said that? Charity is a voluntary act. A gift. While charity can be harmful, how can you claim it's evil?
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
If you were really going to donate enough money to fill the void from loss of taxation, you wouldn't be bitching about paying your taxes in the first place.
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
It's patently moronic to call taxation theft, and even if it were, it's irrelevant due to the vast need in the face of even greater apathy and greed.
tax A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government.
this definition is flawed, because...
contribution
n 1: any one of a number of individual efforts in a common endeavor; "I am proud of my contribution to the team's success"; "they all did their share of the work" [syn: part, share] 2: a voluntary gift (as of money or service or ideas) made to some worthwhile cause [syn: donation]
Note well the word "voluntary". It infuses the whole notion of "contribution". Taxes are NEVER voluntary.
theft
n. The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.
steal
To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
In order for you to argue that taxation is not stealing, you not only have to argue that rights exist, but that the group has a higher right to a person's wages than the individual does.
You can't pass the first hurdle, right don't exist. How then do you get to the second one, explaining how the group can rob the individual, let alone get over it? This'll be entertaining.
Also, the essence of charity is that the donor defines the gift, not the recipient. Can you imagine if the Red Cross had the right to demand blood? That would create a whole new market for DDT.
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
The net gain is positive, and it makes a better society.
Oh? Does it? Here's one problem you face:
James Madison:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison
Government sponsored charity is unconstitutional.
Here's another:
Where is the worst poverty found, you know, the greatest need? Africa. What's the problem with Africa? The socialist governments that steal all the loose change, so no one can afford to start businesses, or keep them.
What's wrong with Germany? Socialist governments taking things, like the freedom of employers to fire slugs, and giving things, like five weeks of paid vacation a year for everyone. Ditto France.
Why did the Soviet Union collapse? A tax rate of 100%. That's the same problem Norh Korea faces, too.
Clearly too much stealing is a bad thing.
Then, of course, there's reality intruding on your little dream world of lovey-dovey and caring. It's called the Laffer Curve. Since we're currently at the high tax end of the Laffer Curve, explain what would happen to economic growth if the tax rates were reduced to the lower rate that would yield the same revenues to the government?
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
Taxation is necessary for a civilized nation.
Is it? Don't you have to define "civilized" first? And "necessary", of course. Are you able to say what the proper functions of government are in a free society?
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
Most taxation goes to benefit everyone in terms of public services, and the taxation that does not goes to benefit those who need it most.
Oh, it does? Most federal outlays wasted. In 1999 an audit determined that the Department of Education had absolutely no idea where $500 million went. And for all the money that's being spent on education 20% of California high school seniors couldn't pass an exit exam geared to an eighth grade level.
There's a couple of entertaining ways of looking at that. If they're testing to the eighth grade level, couldn't the education budget be cut by 33%? Why spend the money to teach grades 9, 10, 11, and 12 when it's not tested? Or they could devise a test to find that 20% early and kick them out of school, they're clearly too stupid to be wasting money on. Lots of fun things to do to save money there, right?
How did anyone outside of teachers and their unions benefit from those wasted dollars?
Not too long ago, the government spent money on levees in New Orleans. Now, the money spent went to build social clubs and casinos and other crap, and little went to levees, which didn't really matter because the levee that failed was as good as the Army Corp of Engineers thought it needed to be, but all that money was being spent anyway.
How did anyone outside of politicians and their cronies benefit from those wasted dollars?
I won't say the military doesn't waste dollars. The Navy was spending hundreds of thousands per unit to install "unisex" heads on ships. Think how many flak jackets that could have provided in Iraq.
Then there's the entitlements that benefit no one except the guy getting the check. That ponzi scheme Roosevelt concocted does nothing except transfer money from the poorest workers in the country to the richest people, the retirees who've spent a live time amassing personal wealth. Ditto Medicaid. All that money is WASTED.
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
If you don't like taxes, go move to the wilderness and live alone outside of society. Revoke your participation in the social contract and be totally self-sufficient on your own squatter land.
What is it with you people, anyway? You got Cuba, isn't that the paradise you people have been working for? Yet you people have the balls to tell the producers to leave if they don't like being robbed. The LAST thing you people want is for people like me to leave.
Then you guys always bring up that socialist contract nonsense. Excuse me, but I didn't sign any contract, so I'm not obligated to live by whatever rules this imaginary document seeks to impose on me. Can you post your copy of
this thing so we all can check it out? Hint: Rousseau was one of the fathers of socialism. The first thing socialists did when they took power during the French Revolution was to cut off 40,000 heads.
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
The wealthy have more, so they can afford to paymore.
Did any of them hire you as their accountant? No? Then how did you become able to judge what another person can afford to pay? Your arrogance is astounding.
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
Please, that worthless california governer owns several hummers. He could have fed an entire village for years with that money. Obviously, his frivolous wastage of resources on vehicals he will likely never use was more important that someone dying of starvation.
So? You don't think thorwing money at them will change things, do you? It never does. That's why it shouldn't be done. It's a waste.[/quote]
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
No. One person's needs must come before that person's wants, if he's crazy enough to confuse the two. That person's needs NEVER become another person's obligations. And that's because your socialist contract is a fiction.
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
Now, say what you mean, and stop using bullshit language---you don't want taxes taken from you because you are cheap tight-ass Libertardian who only cares about 1 person--himself. Stop bull********; speak up lad, and stop hiding behind your Objectivist rhetoric. Haha. All a clever way of trying to justify selfishness. Objectivism is so novel.
It's amazing how the takers need the short words, if you know what I mean. I'm perfectly familiar with what theft is. When are you going to explain why my property is yours?
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
You say it is wasted simply because you do not directly benefit. That shows you are selfish. That's the true meaning of being an Objectivist.
No. I say it's wasted becuase society gets as much benefit from it as if it was put in a pile and burned. Perhaps you noticed that the black family doesn't exist in American inner cities anymore? That's YOUR ideas at work. Those people NEED you, now. I don't need you, and that's the advantage of being "selfish". Because I'm concerned with myself, I don't need to steal from others.
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
You only care about yourself.
No. I have a family. They come first, at the very front of the line, ahead off all the useless welfare maggots in the inner cities, ahead of all the white trash rural freeloaders, and way way out in front of every single starving child Sally Struther's paraded on my TV. And amazingly once their NEEDS are taken care of, there's absolutely NOTHING left for the parasites, because the parasites don't do anything for ME.
I don't make things fancy. There's elegance in saying things plainly.
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
NO matter how fancy you try to make it, in the end, YOU are the one who matters in totality.
I know. Glad you agree.
And that's why I see nothing wrong with responsible animal experimentation.