Your Taxes, Your Beliefs

[Wake]

All of you have brought up good points, and for that I'm grateful.

From my very limited perspective (not so much thanks to you guys) I still think people should be able to opt out of some taxes. It just doesn't seem fair to ave to pay for a bagel tax, especially if you don't even eat bagels. Or to have to pay for abortion clinics if you're ardently pro-life. If you don't believe in going to war in the Middle East, one's taxes shouldn't have to go towards that, either.

These politicians are like mosquitos and they'll stop at nothing to siphon money from you to pay for whatever it is they're up to, whether you like it or not. We should make it so that citizens pay the essentials, but not, in the very least, the fringe taxes around the country.

The problem is that once you say we should pay the "essentials," you ultimately leave it up to the discretion of politicians to arbitrarily decide what is essential. They've obviously already decided these taxes are essential, otherwise they wouldn't have imposed them.

I believe there could be a way to discern what's essential to our nation and what isn't. Roads need upkeep, as well as public buildings, like libraries. Seemingly neutral things that require taxes, like general upkeep, are less controversial than paying for abortions, unpopular wars, and contraception. Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot, and everyone had to pay taxes for religious and conservative costs, like churches and mosques, and anything else that could be pertain towards religious/conservative/Republican ideologies.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

All of you have brought up good points, and for that I'm grateful.

From my very limited perspective (not so much thanks to you guys) I still think people should be able to opt out of some taxes. It just doesn't seem fair to ave to pay for a bagel tax, especially if you don't even eat bagels. Or to have to pay for abortion clinics if you're ardently pro-life. If you don't believe in going to war in the Middle East, one's taxes shouldn't have to go towards that, either.

These politicians are like mosquitos and they'll stop at nothing to siphon money from you to pay for whatever it is they're up to, whether you like it or not. We should make it so that citizens pay the essentials, but not, in the very least, the fringe taxes around the country.

The problem is that once you say we should pay the "essentials," you ultimately leave it up to the discretion of politicians to arbitrarily decide what is essential. They've obviously already decided these taxes are essential, otherwise they wouldn't have imposed them.

I believe there could be a way to discern what's essential to our nation and what isn't. Roads need upkeep, as well as public buildings, like libraries. Seemingly neutral things that require taxes, like general upkeep, are less controversial than paying for abortions, unpopular wars, and contraception. Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot, and everyone had to pay taxes for religious and conservative costs, like churches and mosques, and anything else that could be pertain towards religious/conservative/Republican ideologies.

You simply assume that libraries and roads must be run by the government, however, which is not really the case.

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem is that once you say we should pay the "essentials," you ultimately leave it up to the discretion of politicians to arbitrarily decide what is essential. They've obviously already decided these taxes are essential, otherwise they wouldn't have imposed them.

I believe there could be a way to discern what's essential to our nation and what isn't. Roads need upkeep, as well as public buildings, like libraries. Seemingly neutral things that require taxes, like general upkeep, are less controversial than paying for abortions, unpopular wars, and contraception. Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot, and everyone had to pay taxes for religious and conservative costs, like churches and mosques, and anything else that could be pertain towards religious/conservative/Republican ideologies.

You simply assume that libraries and roads must be run by the government, however, which is not really the case.

At the same time, there is room within the social contract, as the Founders saw it, for the people to cooperate and share the expense of a mutually shared road, to pool their resources to fund a library that all could enjoy, to share in the expense of fire and police protection, or a means to educate their children. Such is the nature of the local government which is a tool of the people to use so that each doesn't have to reinvent the wheel for himself/herself.

But this is the people themselves deciding what they want and need and mutually cooperating to make it happen. It is done via free people who are at liberty to choose for themselves what they need, what they want, and what they can afford.

To have a disconnected central/federal government deciding and dictating to them what they need and mandating to them what they will have and what they will be required to be on the hook for the expense is a much different thing. That corrupts the principle of freedom the Founders wrote into the Constitution--a concept of the people giving the government the orders rather than the other way around.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I believe there could be a way to discern what's essential to our nation and what isn't. Roads need upkeep, as well as public buildings, like libraries. Seemingly neutral things that require taxes, like general upkeep, are less controversial than paying for abortions, unpopular wars, and contraception. Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot, and everyone had to pay taxes for religious and conservative costs, like churches and mosques, and anything else that could be pertain towards religious/conservative/Republican ideologies.

You simply assume that libraries and roads must be run by the government, however, which is not really the case.

At the same time, there is room within the social contract, as the Founders saw it, for the people to cooperate and share the expense of a mutually shared road, to pool their resources to fund a library that all could enjoy, to share in the expense of fire and police protection, or a means to educate their children. Such is the nature of the local government which is a tool of the people to use so that each doesn't have to reinvent the wheel for himself/herself.

But this is the people themselves deciding what they want and need and mutually cooperating to make it happen. It is done via free people who are at liberty to choose for themselves what they need, what they want, and what they can afford.

To have a disconnected central/federal government deciding and dictating to them what they need and mandating to them what they will have and what they will be required to be on the hook for the expense is a much different thing. That corrupts the principle of freedom the Founders wrote into the Constitution--a concept of the people giving the government the orders rather than the other way around.

Yes, free people to choose for themselves what they need, want, and can afford, and anybody who disagrees gets thrown in a cage.

 

[Foxfyre]

You simply assume that libraries and roads must be run by the government, however, which is not really the case.

At the same time, there is room within the social contract, as the Founders saw it, for the people to cooperate and share the expense of a mutually shared road, to pool their resources to fund a library that all could enjoy, to share in the expense of fire and police protection, or a means to educate their children. Such is the nature of the local government which is a tool of the people to use so that each doesn't have to reinvent the wheel for himself/herself.

But this is the people themselves deciding what they want and need and mutually cooperating to make it happen. It is done via free people who are at liberty to choose for themselves what they need, what they want, and what they can afford.

To have a disconnected central/federal government deciding and dictating to them what they need and mandating to them what they will have and what they will be required to be on the hook for the expense is a much different thing. That corrupts the principle of freedom the Founders wrote into the Constitution--a concept of the people giving the government the orders rather than the other way around.

Yes, free people to choose for themselves what they need, want, and can afford, and anybody who disagrees gets thrown in a cage.

No at all. Generally those who disagreed with the majority were usually grandfathered out as communities were created for mutual benefit and cooperation. (Few social contracts would be possible if they required 100% consensus, but a strong majority was generally required for it to happen.) We've had this discussion before, but in a free society, sometimes the only method to choose is via majority vote. Otherwise a tyranny of a small minority could impede progress for all.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

At the same time, there is room within the social contract, as the Founders saw it, for the people to cooperate and share the expense of a mutually shared road, to pool their resources to fund a library that all could enjoy, to share in the expense of fire and police protection, or a means to educate their children. Such is the nature of the local government which is a tool of the people to use so that each doesn't have to reinvent the wheel for himself/herself.

But this is the people themselves deciding what they want and need and mutually cooperating to make it happen. It is done via free people who are at liberty to choose for themselves what they need, what they want, and what they can afford.

To have a disconnected central/federal government deciding and dictating to them what they need and mandating to them what they will have and what they will be required to be on the hook for the expense is a much different thing. That corrupts the principle of freedom the Founders wrote into the Constitution--a concept of the people giving the government the orders rather than the other way around.

Yes, free people to choose for themselves what they need, want, and can afford, and anybody who disagrees gets thrown in a cage.

No at all. Generally those who disagreed with the majority were usually grandfathered out as communities were created for mutual benefit and cooperation. (Few social contracts would be possible if they required 100% consensus, but a strong majority was generally required for it to happen.) We've had this discussion before, but in a free society, sometimes the only method to choose is via majority vote. Otherwise a tyranny of a small minority could impede progress for all.

So, in other words, if I don't want to fund a library that you want, and you get a group of others to agree with you, you can throw me in a cage for refusing.

Social cooperation is exemplified by private business, like McDonald's. I refuse to eat fast food, as I don't think it's really food at all, so I don't buy anything at McDonald's. Thus, none of my rightfully earned money goes to fund McDonald's. Yet the majority of not only my neighbors, but Americans in general, disagree with me. They willingly spend their money at McDonald's and make it quite profitable. For some reason, they don't see the need to force me to pay McDonald's despite the fact that I have no use for McDonald's. This is social harmony, and social cooperation, and makes everybody better off. Taking my money against my will, stealing it, in other words, to fund a library that I have no use for is an example of social coercion, and merely creates discord and bitterness in a community.

Trying to keep one's property is not an example of the tyranny of the minority.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, free people to choose for themselves what they need, want, and can afford, and anybody who disagrees gets thrown in a cage.

No at all. Generally those who disagreed with the majority were usually grandfathered out as communities were created for mutual benefit and cooperation. (Few social contracts would be possible if they required 100% consensus, but a strong majority was generally required for it to happen.) We've had this discussion before, but in a free society, sometimes the only method to choose is via majority vote. Otherwise a tyranny of a small minority could impede progress for all.

So, in other words, if I don't want to fund a library that you want, and you get a group of others to agree with you, you can throw me in a cage for refusing.

Social cooperation is exemplified by private business, like McDonald's. I refuse to eat fast food, as I don't think it's really food at all, so I don't buy anything at McDonald's. Thus, none of my rightfully earned money goes to fund McDonald's. Yet the majority of not only my neighbors, but Americans in general, disagree with me. They willingly spend their money at McDonald's and make it quite profitable. For some reason, they don't see the need to force me to pay McDonald's despite the fact that I have no use for McDonald's. This is social harmony, and social cooperation, and makes everybody better off. Taking my money against my will, stealing it, in other words, to fund a library that I have no use for is an example of social coercion, and merely creates discord and bitterness in a community.

Trying to keep one's property is not an example of the tyranny of the minority.

Kevin, you and I have already had this discussion. You believe the one's preference overrides the rest of the community. I don't as I see value in the community being able to choose to cooperate for mutual benefit. I won't allow you to draw silly assumptions of what I believe from that or throwing people into cages. I accept that you are an anarchist when it comes to the community. I fully support your ability to live someplace where you won't bother anybody else and be as much of an anarchist as you want to be. But I also believe disallowing mutual cooperation is as much a violation of individual liberty as much as the mob who gangs up on the one.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No at all. Generally those who disagreed with the majority were usually grandfathered out as communities were created for mutual benefit and cooperation. (Few social contracts would be possible if they required 100% consensus, but a strong majority was generally required for it to happen.) We've had this discussion before, but in a free society, sometimes the only method to choose is via majority vote. Otherwise a tyranny of a small minority could impede progress for all.

So, in other words, if I don't want to fund a library that you want, and you get a group of others to agree with you, you can throw me in a cage for refusing.

Social cooperation is exemplified by private business, like McDonald's. I refuse to eat fast food, as I don't think it's really food at all, so I don't buy anything at McDonald's. Thus, none of my rightfully earned money goes to fund McDonald's. Yet the majority of not only my neighbors, but Americans in general, disagree with me. They willingly spend their money at McDonald's and make it quite profitable. For some reason, they don't see the need to force me to pay McDonald's despite the fact that I have no use for McDonald's. This is social harmony, and social cooperation, and makes everybody better off. Taking my money against my will, stealing it, in other words, to fund a library that I have no use for is an example of social coercion, and merely creates discord and bitterness in a community.

Trying to keep one's property is not an example of the tyranny of the minority.

Kevin, you and I have already had this discussion. You believe the one's preference overrides the rest of the community. I don't as I see value in the community being able to choose to cooperate for mutual benefit. I won't allow you to draw silly assumptions of what I believe from that or throwing people into cages. I accept that you are an anarchist when it comes to the community. I fully support your ability to live someplace where you won't bother anybody else and be as much of an anarchist as you want to be. But I also believe disallowing mutual cooperation is as much a violation of individual liberty as much as the mob who gangs up on the one.

Yet you're defining the right to use violence against people as "cooperation," which it is not. My example of McDonald's was an example of social cooperation. Note the voluntary aspect. Nor is violence mutually beneficial. The society is worse off for using violence against individuals. Nor is my living on the property that I own right now while hypothetically choosing not to pay taxes for a library I have no use for "bothering anybody." I don't need to go live in the woods to achieve that.

 

[Foxfyre]

So, in other words, if I don't want to fund a library that you want, and you get a group of others to agree with you, you can throw me in a cage for refusing.

Social cooperation is exemplified by private business, like McDonald's. I refuse to eat fast food, as I don't think it's really food at all, so I don't buy anything at McDonald's. Thus, none of my rightfully earned money goes to fund McDonald's. Yet the majority of not only my neighbors, but Americans in general, disagree with me. They willingly spend their money at McDonald's and make it quite profitable. For some reason, they don't see the need to force me to pay McDonald's despite the fact that I have no use for McDonald's. This is social harmony, and social cooperation, and makes everybody better off. Taking my money against my will, stealing it, in other words, to fund a library that I have no use for is an example of social coercion, and merely creates discord and bitterness in a community.

Trying to keep one's property is not an example of the tyranny of the minority.

Kevin, you and I have already had this discussion. You believe the one's preference overrides the rest of the community. I don't as I see value in the community being able to choose to cooperate for mutual benefit. I won't allow you to draw silly assumptions of what I believe from that or throwing people into cages. I accept that you are an anarchist when it comes to the community. I fully support your ability to live someplace where you won't bother anybody else and be as much of an anarchist as you want to be. But I also believe disallowing mutual cooperation is as much a violation of individual liberty as much as the mob who gangs up on the one.

Yet you're defining the right to use violence against people as "cooperation," which it is not. My example of McDonald's was an example of social cooperation. Note the voluntary aspect. Nor is violence mutually beneficial. The society is worse off for using violence against individuals. Nor is my living on the property that I own right now while hypothetically choosing not to pay taxes for a library I have no use for "bothering anybody." I don't need to go live in the woods to achieve that.

Again I will not accept your characterization of me as to what I define or what I advocate or anything else like that when you continue to use nothing but silly talk. McDonalds is a private corporation and has nothing to do with the social contract other than being required to operate within the boundaries of the local social contract when it chooses to do business within a particular community. The social contract offers McDonalds certain protections while protecting me by not allowing it to move in next door.

I believe freedom allows people to organize for mutual benefit. You don't. It is as simply as that. If the community wants a library and votes to devote a certain amount of public funds for that library, I have no problem with that even if I vote against it. It would be nice if each of us could decide exactly what we are willing to pay for in the community whether we benefit or not, but I have not figured out any way to realistically establish a policy like that. My liberty does not allow me to arbitrarily dictate what the community policies will or will not be, nor does it assume that I am immune to the will of the whole when it comes to the general welfare.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin, you and I have already had this discussion. You believe the one's preference overrides the rest of the community. I don't as I see value in the community being able to choose to cooperate for mutual benefit. I won't allow you to draw silly assumptions of what I believe from that or throwing people into cages. I accept that you are an anarchist when it comes to the community. I fully support your ability to live someplace where you won't bother anybody else and be as much of an anarchist as you want to be. But I also believe disallowing mutual cooperation is as much a violation of individual liberty as much as the mob who gangs up on the one.

Yet you're defining the right to use violence against people as "cooperation," which it is not. My example of McDonald's was an example of social cooperation. Note the voluntary aspect. Nor is violence mutually beneficial. The society is worse off for using violence against individuals. Nor is my living on the property that I own right now while hypothetically choosing not to pay taxes for a library I have no use for "bothering anybody." I don't need to go live in the woods to achieve that.

Again I will not accept your characterization of me as to what I define or what I advocate or anything else like that when you continue to use nothing but silly talk. McDonalds is a private corporation and has nothing to do with the social contract other than being required to operate within the boundaries of the local social contract when it chooses to do business within a particular community. The social contract offers McDonalds certain protections while protecting me by not allowing it to move in next door.

I believe freedom allows people to organize for mutual benefit. You don't. It is as simply as that. If the community wants a library and votes to devote a certain amount of public funds for that library, I have no problem with that even if I vote against it. It would be nice if each of us could decide exactly what we are willing to pay for in the community whether we benefit or not, but I have not figured out any way to realistically establish a policy like that. My liberty does not allow me to arbitrarily dictate what the community policies will or will not be, nor does it assume that I am immune to the will of the whole when it comes to the general welfare.

It's called the free market.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yet you're defining the right to use violence against people as "cooperation," which it is not. My example of McDonald's was an example of social cooperation. Note the voluntary aspect. Nor is violence mutually beneficial. The society is worse off for using violence against individuals. Nor is my living on the property that I own right now while hypothetically choosing not to pay taxes for a library I have no use for "bothering anybody." I don't need to go live in the woods to achieve that.

Again I will not accept your characterization of me as to what I define or what I advocate or anything else like that when you continue to use nothing but silly talk. McDonalds is a private corporation and has nothing to do with the social contract other than being required to operate within the boundaries of the local social contract when it chooses to do business within a particular community. The social contract offers McDonalds certain protections while protecting me by not allowing it to move in next door.

I believe freedom allows people to organize for mutual benefit. You don't. It is as simply as that. If the community wants a library and votes to devote a certain amount of public funds for that library, I have no problem with that even if I vote against it. It would be nice if each of us could decide exactly what we are willing to pay for in the community whether we benefit or not, but I have not figured out any way to realistically establish a policy like that. My liberty does not allow me to arbitrarily dictate what the community policies will or will not be, nor does it assume that I am immune to the will of the whole when it comes to the general welfare.

It's called the free market.

No, it is not called the free market. It is called at best special privilege and/or lawlessness; at worst anarchy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Again I will not accept your characterization of me as to what I define or what I advocate or anything else like that when you continue to use nothing but silly talk. McDonalds is a private corporation and has nothing to do with the social contract other than being required to operate within the boundaries of the local social contract when it chooses to do business within a particular community. The social contract offers McDonalds certain protections while protecting me by not allowing it to move in next door.

I believe freedom allows people to organize for mutual benefit. You don't. It is as simply as that. If the community wants a library and votes to devote a certain amount of public funds for that library, I have no problem with that even if I vote against it. It would be nice if each of us could decide exactly what we are willing to pay for in the community whether we benefit or not, but I have not figured out any way to realistically establish a policy like that. My liberty does not allow me to arbitrarily dictate what the community policies will or will not be, nor does it assume that I am immune to the will of the whole when it comes to the general welfare.

It's called the free market.

No, it is not called the free market. It is called at best special privilege and/or lawlessness; at worst anarchy.

Your characterization of voluntary exchange among individuals as a "special privilege" and "lawless" is rejected. It is, literally, the opposite of those things.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's called the free market.

No, it is not called the free market. It is called at best special privilege and/or lawlessness; at worst anarchy.

Your characterization of voluntary exchange among individuals as a "special privilege" and "lawless" is rejected. It is, literally, the opposite of those things.

We weren't talking about voluntary exchange among individuals. We were talking about people organizing for mutual benefit. There is a difference between these two things.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, it is not called the free market. It is called at best special privilege and/or lawlessness; at worst anarchy.

Your characterization of voluntary exchange among individuals as a "special privilege" and "lawless" is rejected. It is, literally, the opposite of those things.

We weren't talking about voluntary exchange among individuals. We were talking about people organizing for mutual benefit. There is a difference between these two things.

Not really. The only way to organize for mutual benefit is through voluntary exchange among individuals. Using violence, through political means, is not mutually beneficial, but rather beneficial for some and harmful to others.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your characterization of voluntary exchange among individuals as a "special privilege" and "lawless" is rejected. It is, literally, the opposite of those things.

We weren't talking about voluntary exchange among individuals. We were talking about people organizing for mutual benefit. There is a difference between these two things.

Not really. The only way to organize for mutual benefit is through voluntary exchange among individuals. Using violence, through political means, is not mutually beneficial, but rather beneficial for some and harmful to others.

Whatever. You refuse to read what I write and draw ridiculous conclusions and assumptions. Makes it very difficult to have an intelligent conversation and I won't try any further. Do have a pleasant evening.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We weren't talking about voluntary exchange among individuals. We were talking about people organizing for mutual benefit. There is a difference between these two things.

Not really. The only way to organize for mutual benefit is through voluntary exchange among individuals. Using violence, through political means, is not mutually beneficial, but rather beneficial for some and harmful to others.

Whatever. You refuse to read what I write and draw ridiculous conclusions and assumptions. Makes it very difficult to have an intelligent conversation and I won't try any further. Do have a pleasant evening.

Since when does having a differing opinion constitute refusal to read?