Whatever you wish government to do, you should be willing to force with a gun

[Ethereal]

So what do you propose?

Anarchy? some lord of the flies fantasy where you live on an Island ran by the biggest and strongest?
... who will be holding the gun then?

We as a society vote in reps that carry out the way govt is run.
You can protest, but you need to respect the will of the voters.

Otherwise, you are free to leave.

Celticlord gives you Thoreau and you counter with Beavis and Butt-Head...

Anway, your strawman is not appreciated. Minimal government is not the same as anarchy (just ask Agna, he'll tell you!); it's actually categorically impossible, I'm surprised I even have to tell you...wait, no I'm not.

 

[Mach]

The difference is that I can choose not to have electricity, or to rent that particular apartment. I can not choose not to pay my taxes. There is a degree of freedom in choice regarding electricity and rent that simply does not exist with taxation..

By your own reasoning you are incorrect.

The U.S. cannot effectively "turn off your national security protection" when you don't pay taxes. They cannot refuse to treat person X for their emergency room visit, because they tied that treatment to your payment Y that you refused to pay.

And, you were afforded education on all of this with plenty of time for you to exist the U.S. shortly after you had to start paying taxes. You can choose to opt-out, by moving at any time. So it's still voluntary, and they actually paid to educate you (or offered it, maybe you refused it) on how the transactiosn work, and you chose to stay.

-Mach

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Another alternative is a police-state, but that's worse...so we choose paying the poor, rather than shooting them, and certainly rather than a police-state.

Are you truly certain that it is better? By paying them to contribute nothing, you are robbing them of their potential and society of their contribution. Obviously, a war-torn and chaotic nation is worse... but in a well-ordered society, the lives of the unfortunate and the talentless can have purpose and meaning. Their lives can serve to improve society, instead of being a drain upon it and fostering resentment in those of us who have to work to support them.

Or, at very least, they can be shot quietly and with a minimum of fuss, so that the rest of us can still enjoy the benefits of living in a peaceful civilization.

A good business profits from all its employees, despite their inherent flaws and lack of enlightenment of each individual. So too should a good civizilation.

Indeed.

 

[Goshin]

Are you truly certain that it is better? By paying them to contribute nothing, you are robbing them of their potential and society of their contribution. Obviously, a war-torn and chaotic nation is worse... but in a well-ordered society, the lives of the unfortunate and the talentless can have purpose and meaning. Their lives can serve to improve society, instead of being a drain upon it and fostering resentment in those of us who have to work to support them.

Or, at very least, they can be shot quietly and with a minimum of fuss, so that the rest of us can still enjoy the benefits of living in a peaceful civilization.



Indeed.

Or we can just cut all welfare payments, loosen all gun and self-defense laws nationwide, and the citizens can shoot them when they come to rob us. I like that one better. :mrgreen:

 

[Oftencold]

You are not, and likely never will be, in an enlightened civilization. It's an ideal, not a reality.

Personally, I find this assertion to be ludicrous. We, and a number of other countries where rule of Law and guaruteed rights prevail are when compared to all other countries and the historical record, indeed "enlightened." But that I suppose is a matter of opinion, an opinion that says a lot about its holder.

Just as we paradoxically built a massive military to ensure we have peace and prosperity, so too to do we build a massive internal "military" (government) to ensure we have peace and prosperity.

So then, it appears that you would assert that a police state would be noted for its "Peace and prosperity." I'll let that stand or fall on its own merits.

Government handouts are not to reward people for doing nothing, and not even to help those who get the handouts. It's to prevent them from revolting, and you having to shoot them, resulting in a war-torn country (see various third world countries and how that's worked out for them) that profits no one. Another alternative is a police-state, but that's worse...so we choose paying the poor, rather than shooting them, and certainly rather than a police-state.

There are some times and places where this may have been true. But in America our politicians generally I've found, "feed the 'poor'" in order to assure their loyal votes. Arguably it could bve said that for the poor to cast "unapproved" votes would be a form or revolt, but hardly the kind you are describing.

By the way, in modern despotic systems, starving the poor is a preferred method for preventing insurrection.

It's hard work, yes, not ideal, yes, but then LIFE is not ideal. It is holding us at gun point as we type, we do the same out of self defense. A good business profits from all its employees, despite their inherent flaws and lack of enlightenment of each individual. So too should a good civizilation.

If a civilization is to profit from all of its citizens, then they will all have to be made responsible.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Or we can just cut all welfare payments, loosen all gun and self-defense laws nationwide, and the citizens can shoot them when they come to rob us. I like that one better. :mrgreen:

I believe that's what Mach was referring to when he used the phrase "war zone". Besides, it costs more to feed them in prison than it does to give them Welfare, so to save money you'd also have to cut back on law enforcement and prisons-- which is the perfect environment for people like me to try to create the police state that people like Mach are trying to avoid. Think about how scared the people are now, how willing to believe anyone who promises them security and prosperity, and then imagine if they were actually in any kind of real danger on a regular basis.

 

[Oftencold]

I agree. . . .

 

[hazlnut]

You listed about 1% of the things that you happily and gratefully allow local, state, and federal governments to do for you.

Your focus is on regulation and laws. But we are a nation of laws. Thoughtful, pragmatic, sensible laws with safeguards against government's over-reaching.

I guess it's all a matter of perspective. Are there laws on the books that make no sense? Of course. But on the whole...

Taxes. Ah, yes, there's the rub. I've noticed that the people who complain the most also benefit the most--meaning pay less and get more bang for their tax dollar in the way of services and freedoms.

I sort of understand the frustration. It's like that Eddie Murphy routine about divorce--if you only make 50K a year and your government takes half, that kind of sucks. But when you make 500k a year, after taxes you still have 250K to play around with.

But we all drive on the same roads. Benefit from the same public services. So, if I'm kicking in 5-10 times what you are, and not complaining, just being mindful of how it is spent--then your complaining does get a little tiresome.

Someone should make a video about a country without taxes, where every single thing that your tax dollar pays for is non-existent. A world where only those who can afford basic public services get them.

 

[Oftencold]

You listed about 1% of the things that you happily and gratefully allow local, state, and federal governments to do for you.

Your focus is on regulation and laws. But we are a nation of laws. Thoughtful, pragmatic, sensible laws with safeguards against government's over-reaching.

I guess it's all a matter of perspective. Are there laws on the books that make no sense? Of course. But on the whole...

Taxes. Ah, yes, there's the rub. I've noticed that the people who complain the most also benefit the most--meaning pay less and get more bang for their tax dollar in the way of services and freedoms.

I sort of understand the frustration. It's like that Eddie Murphy routine about divorce--if you only make 50K a year and your government takes half, that kind of sucks. But when you make 500k a year, after taxes you still have 250K to play around with.

But we all drive on the same roads. Benefit from the same public services. So, if I'm kicking in 5-10 times what you are, and not complaining, just being mindful of how it is spent--then your complaining does get a little tiresome.

Someone should make a video about a country without taxes, where every single thing that your tax dollar pays for is non-existent. A world where only those who can afford basic public services get them.

So then, can we put you down as one who would be willing to enter your more wealthy neighbor's home with gun in hand and confiscate his wealth?

Or are you content to hide in anonymity while your surrogates do so?

Again, every single Government act is ultimately backed with the threat of lethal force. This is the nature of governments. A republic attempts to refine its goals so that a minimum number of people need be confronted with the final option of enforcement, but that does not in any way negate it.

 

[hazlnut]

So then, can we put you down as one who would be willing to enter your more wealthy neighbor's home with gun in hand and confiscate his wealth?

Or are you content to hide in anonymity while your surrogates do so?

I get along with my neighbors. We're all fortunate to make a good living. None of us look forward to tax day, but we see this country and it's government as half-full. For People, businesses, government--it about progress not perfection.

Again, every single Government act is ultimately backed with the threat of lethal force. This is the nature of governments. A republic attempts to refine its goals so that a minimum number of people need be confronted with the final option of enforcement, but that does not in any way negate it.

Overdue library books?:2razz:

Anyway, you're completely wrong and not stating anything that has any basis in reality.

Lethal force is reserved for those who become a danger to themselves or others. I challenge you to give a reasonable and typical example of where lethal force was used otherwise.

Typical = happens on a daily basis, not Ruby Ridge or similar tragedy--don't derail the thread with a rant on the one particular incident.

Nowadays, peace officers can not even legally draw their weapon without threat of death or serious injury to themselves or the public.

 

[Goshin]

I believe that's what Mach was referring to when he used the phrase "war zone". Besides, it costs more to feed them in prison than it does to give them Welfare, so to save money you'd also have to cut back on law enforcement and prisons-- which is the perfect environment for people like me to try to create the police state that people like Mach are trying to avoid. Think about how scared the people are now, how willing to believe anyone who promises them security and prosperity, and then imagine if they were actually in any kind of real danger on a regular basis.

Hm. That nefarious plot would work fine in Massawhochits and Kalifornistan. Don't think it would work so well in Dixie, we're pretty much okay with the idea of doing our own killing.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I disagree. He is stating that government power is inherently coercive rather than persuasive. The consequence of disobedience to laws are not "natural" consequences that would fall upon the individual with or without government, but are the arbitrarily defined consequences imposed by government.

If I do not pay my electric bill, the light company turns off my electricity until I do. That is a natural consequence--if I do not pay for a service, I do not receive a service.

If I do not pay my rent, the property manager evicts me. That is a natural consequence--if I am unwilling to pay per the rent contract, the rent contract (to which I agreed) gives the property manager that right.

If I do not pay my taxes, the IRS confiscates my house, my car, and then sends me to jail. That is an arbitrary consequence--there is nothing inherent about failure to pay a tax that give anyone the right to seize my property but the laws government enacts regarding taxation. I do not consent to a tax the way I consent to a light bill or a monthly rent.

The difference is that I can choose not to have electricity, or to rent that particular apartment. I can not choose not to pay my taxes. There is a degree of freedom in choice regarding electricity and rent that simply does not exist with taxation.

The OP's identification of government power as coercive does not negate the existence of consequences without government power; it merely states a preference for the greater degree of negotiation and opportunities for avoidance found in dealing with non-governmental consequences.

Your argument draws inaccurate conclusions, and goes into natural law, again, which I completely reject as fallacious and non-existent. Your requirement to pay your electric bill is equivalent to your requirement to pay your taxes. By living in your house and using the company's electricity, you owe for those services. By living in this country and using the country's facilities, you owe for those services. If you do not want to pay your electric bill, do not use electricity. These are the company's rules that they set...and they can do this because they have the power to do so. If you do not want to pay taxes, do not live here. These are the government's rules that they have set...and they do this because they have the power to do so. There is no difference between private and governmental power and consequences. Every action results in a response/consequence.

 

[Oftencold]

Y. . . There is no difference between private and governmental power and consequences. Every action results in a response/consequence.

Of course there is. Only the Government can send (and I'm really getting tired of repeating this,) an armed officer to incarcerate you for failure to comply with their dictates. And the gun the officer carries is not merely for show.

If your opposition to any government action grows troublesome enough, the weapon will be used to enforce your capitulation, or worse.

This is a very, very elementary concept, and fact of life.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Of course there is. Only the Government can send (and I'm really getting tired of repeating this,) an armed officer to incarcerate you for failure to comply with their dictates. And the gun the officer carries is not merely for show.

If your opposition to any government action grows troublesome enough, the weapon will be used to enforce your capitulation, or worse.

This is a very, very elementary concept, and fact of life.

Yes, you've said this before. And others have told you that you are taking an extreme and attempting to apply it as if it was normal. This does not occur under usual circumstances, so your argument is but a straw man argument.

However, if you insist on suggesting it, then if you refuse to pay your electric bill, the private company could have you arrested, under the same extreme circumstances, with armed officer and all. If you trespass at a private company and refuse to leave, a private security officer, paid for by that company, along with gun, can "insist" that you leave.

Your argument is a straw man. And the straw man applies to extreme circumstances in the private sector, too, both with and without public assistance.

 

[Oftencold]

Actually, since private security services must be licensed and authorized by the government, that argument you make is shaky at best.

But to further illustrate your error, if you leave the property upon which your trespass, the private security agent cannot find you at home the next day and use his gun to force you into jail for the previouls offense.

But some entity can. Can you guess which one?

And my point is in no way and extreme example -- it is a fundamental principle of Government. Again this is why I assert, that any action that you wish for Government to perform, you should be willing to enforce yourself with deadly force if no other option were available.

Again, this is the fundamental nature of Government.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Actually, since private security services must be licensed and authorized by the government, that argument you make is shaky at best.

But to further illustrate your error, if you leave the property upon which your trespass, the private security agent cannot find you at home the next day and use his gun to force you into jail for the previouls offense.

But some entity can. Can you guess which one?

And my point is in no way and extreme example -- it is a fundamental principle of Government. Again this is why I assert, that any action that you wish for Government to perform, you should be willing to enforce yourself with deadly force if no other option were available.

Again, this is the fundamental nature of Government.

It is STILL an extreme example and a straw man argument. And notice what you said. The government acts as an AGENT for private industry. Laws are used to protect all sources, private, individual, governmental. Your assertion is a straw man and is narrowly construed. You omit things to attempt to make a point that does not fit.

 

[Oftencold]

Actually, I'd have said that the Government was acting as the liege, and the guard as the vassal.

But I think I've said about all I have to say on the topic, and leave it to you to exercise your own insight and wisdom in the matter.

 

[Mach]

Are you truly certain that it is better? By paying them to contribute nothing, you are robbing them of their potential and society of their contribution.

I believe it is. And if you look closely your opposition can result in a contradictory position. If you think sustaining someone through what could be a temporary period "robs them of choice", necessarily you'd have to also admit that being impovershed and/or disabled mentally or physcially, may also serve to rob someone of their choice to contribute. Both are to varying degrees, true. As such, any good solution will address both.

Obviously, a war-torn and chaotic nation is worse... but in a well-ordered society, the lives of the unfortunate and the talentless can have purpose and meaning. Their lives can serve to improve society, instead of being a drain upon it and fostering resentment in those of us who have to work to support them.

We're headed there, and have made good progress. Imposing such order takes time and energy, limited by our short lives.
If you wrote out the steps you'd have to go through to implement it, with cost constraints and time to change public opinion, gathering power and support, etc., you may find we're proceeding appropriately. First and easiest step is to address the real need to sustain life. Only after that's in place can you proceed to find how to integrate them, and proceed to integrate them. At some point, that integration effort may be so streamlined it may reduce number of people that stay in that first step significantly...but we can't skip stages.

It wasn't long ago that disabled people were hidden away in private (and worse), or treated like criminals. We've made a lot of progress, there are a few disadvantged kids that help me at Kroger and other stores, Palin and her now public adoption, etc., it seems much more routine than it use to be.

Or, at very least, they can be shot quietly and with a minimum of fuss, so that the rest of us can still enjoy the benefits of living in a peaceful civilization.

That may be the case if most people enjoyed life while knowing they were shooting poor and disabled people on a whim. Some cultures did, but really those cultures survival depended on it...it was a mercy, not convenience. I can't say my survival depends significantly on what it takes to provide such a net to those who need it.

-Mach

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I believe it is. And if you look closely your opposition can result in a contradictory position. If you think sustaining someone through what could be a temporary period "robs them of choice", necessarily you'd have to also admit that being impovershed and/or disabled mentally or physcially, may also serve to rob someone of their choice to contribute. Both are to varying degrees, true. As such, any good solution will address both.

I never said anything about robbing them of their choices-- only their potential. I absolutely agree with you that being impoverished and disabled robs a person of more choices than nearly any government action short of imprisonment, and I also agree that sustaining people through temporary periods of dysfunction is desirable. It preserves their existing potential and the investment that we in a society have already made in their survival. However, it is important that such aid always remain temporary, and that it be conditional upon restoring them to proper and gainful function within society. When you allow public assistance to become a lifestyle, or worse a generational lifestyle, you deprive them of any meaningful existence as surely as if you had put a bullet in their heads.

Only difference is whether it takes a split second or the better part of a century to be finished with it.

If anything, I think that we should invest more resources in helping people to become-- and remain-- functional members of society. It certainly beats our endless expenditures on sustaining our prison population and the lives of the irreparably useless.

That may be the case if most people enjoyed life while knowing they were shooting poor and disabled people on a whim. ... I can't say my survival depends significantly on what it takes to provide such a net to those who need it.

That is the difference between us. I do not believe that our ability to sustain either the willfully or the irreparably criminal or useless makes it any more desirable to do so-- regardless of the fact that we can, relatively painlessly, support these people for the duration of their natural life, it is still a mercy and a moral obligation to put an end to them as humanely as possible. The mercy and compassion that our society has the luxury of enjoying would be better spent on taking the extra resources and care to help those with the ability and the desire to contribute, instead of those who lack one or the other.

 

[Mach]

So then, it appears that you would assert that a police state would be noted for its "Peace and prosperity." I'll let that stand or fall on its own merits.

Incorrect. We have different branches of government, and a variety of agencies all functioning in different ways, with different checks on power and accessibility, that serve us fairly well as individuals.

Police-state on the other hand is essentially one party controlling all branches, no checks on power. I will leave your incomprehension of that as a simple error, not as some vaugue insult about your overall character or capability....

There are some times and places where this may have been true. But in America our politicians generally I've found, "feed the 'poor'" in order to assure their loyal votes. Arguably it could bve said that for the poor to cast "unapproved" votes would be a form or revolt, but hardly the kind you are describing.

Feeding the poor is only good if you get a vote? You believe that's what the majority of americans support?

By the way, in modern despotic systems, starving the poor is a preferred method for preventing insurrection.

What you have to fear in the U.S. is not simply the poor themsleves, it's the many people who have compassion for the poor, combined with the poor. You know, like the U.S. also helps fights for human rights changes in other countries.

If a civilization is to profit from all of its citizens, then they will all have to be made responsible.

That's false. Even a trivial business 101 example like loss leader demonstrates how lack of profit from all sales, or individals, is irrelevant, it's all about the net.

-Mach

 

[Mach]

you deprive them of any meaningful existence as surely as if you had put a bullet in their heads.

Existence itself, if devoid of serious pain and with sufficient freedom, is meaningful in and of itself. At least for me it is, I'd have to assume for others it is as well.
Productivity is not the goal of my short life, nor is it what gives me the most joy. I wonder how many really do mooch entirely off the system in relation to those that don't. I have seen no data on this.

If anything, I think that we should invest more resources in helping people to become-- and remain-- functional members of society. It certainly beats our endless expenditures on sustaining our prison population and the lives of the irreparably useless.

Agreed.

That is the difference between us. I do not believe that our ability to sustain either the willfully or the irreparably criminal or useless makes it any more desirable to do so-- regardless of the fact that we can, relatively painlessly, support these people for the duration of their natural life, it is still a mercy and a moral obligation to put an end to them as humanely as possible. The mercy and compassion that our society has the luxury of enjoying would be better spent on taking the extra resources and care to help those with the ability and the desire to contribute, instead of those who lack one or the other.

I think it's a quantitative difference only. I do not support it if the cost is too high, your price-point is just lower.
When you write irreparably, it implies a certainty that you and I, and social workers, etc., do not have in many cases. What we're talking about is closing the door for redemption. If it's dirt cheap, to give people that path to redeption, I will pay for it, selfishly because I would want it in their position. If it gets too expensive, I will either shorten the duration or remove that support entirely. I suspect the fraction of my taxes that go to help people like this, and the fraction that mooch and are never redeemed, may still be an OK investment.

 

[Panache]

By your own reasoning you are incorrect.

The U.S. cannot effectively "turn off your national security protection" when you don't pay taxes. They cannot refuse to treat person X for their emergency room visit, because they tied that treatment to your payment Y that you refused to pay.

And, you were afforded education on all of this with plenty of time for you to exist the U.S. shortly after you had to start paying taxes. You can choose to opt-out, by moving at any time. So it's still voluntary, and they actually paid to educate you (or offered it, maybe you refused it) on how the transactiosn work, and you chose to stay.

-Mach

As an owl once said on the internets...

O RLY?

Expatriation Tax