If I were to be involved in the structuring of a new govt you would AT THE VERY LEAST be able to decide where you want your tax money to go. And only a very small portion would go the general fund. Shoudl taxes be abolished right now? If we can assure the infrastructure would stay in place and be continually upgraded, sur e. I dont want to force you to do anything. I want to convince you to do whats right. And what is right is for us to make sure everyone has a fair chance.
Sure, lets do it voluntarily. But then all us helpers will get stuck paying for it ourselves, and the greedy will be free to prosper.
“Teach a man to fish” is the most important lesson, but that doesnt mean you shouldnt give him a fish in the meantime.
Ok, if youre making the argument that for one to prosper, in a free market all will prosper. Then isnt that proof enough that we are our brothers keeper?
No, if people don’t value infrastructure, they shouldn’t be enslaved to maintain it.
Fair according to whom?
Maybe “the greedy” don’t have any interest persuing public affairs. Maybe “the greedy” just want to be left alone and you, “the benevolent” lust after their wealth to support your own interests.
So wait, is the ultimate goal not for everyone to prosper? Is it only for you to prosper? What should happen if one of you were to get sick and lose all your money. Would you go running to the social security office to see when your check will be coming? Im not trying to be emotive with that question, Im asking it for real. Would you turn down public assistance out of principle? I want you to honestly search your sould and ask it that question.
Prosperity can come in many forms, and is subject to many interpretations. Goals are decided on an individual basis, not a collective one.
Government intervention has both crowded out and penelized alternatives to its services, which is why I would have to accept the services it offered. If you’re considering that a proformative contradiction, you’re sorely mistaken.
No, the argument is valid. For you to recieve that social security someone had to be coerced out of it. If you accept it, you are taking part in the system of coercion. If Im a thief becuase I believe social security is a good thing. Whats that say about you who actually takes the money?
Yes, I’m taking part in the system, but no, that does not mean I support it or am engaging in coercion. The coercion already took place, the demand is figured arbitrarily (so me taking a handout from the government isn’t going to increase the amount of coercion), and if circumstances make my survivability contingent on accepting government money, I’ll do it.
Making it illegal or impractical to provide a service so that you can be the monopoly supplier does not mean that your customers are supporting your business practices. They simply have no other options because you made it so.
You’re not a theif for saying you support social security, you’re a “theif” (or rather, you “support theft”) for supporting the state in depriving people of their property.