Funny that the article mentions a sinkhole impacting the Mar-a-lago vacation home for the president too. If I were religious, I might see a sign somewhere in these coincidental tea leaves.
Funny that the article mentions a sinkhole impacting the Mar-a-lago vacation home for the president too. If I were religious, I might see a sign somewhere in these coincidental tea leaves.
Do you drive on roads, rely on police and firemen to protect yourself or your property, use any social services or rely on any regulatory bodies to keep you, the food you eat and the products you...
Do you drive on roads, rely on police and firemen to protect yourself or your property, use any social services or rely on any regulatory bodies to keep you, the food you eat and the products you use safe? If so, you're not being robbed you're just paying your fair share. That's how society and civilization works. If you want to live in a libertarian paradise, time travel to Somalia or Liberia during the chaos there in the 90s and let me know how that works out for you.
For same reason insurance charges you money even if you never cash out. Collective benefit relies on individual sacrifice; if people only pay for what they use, like in the case of insurance, the...
For same reason insurance charges you money even if you never cash out. Collective benefit relies on individual sacrifice; if people only pay for what they use, like in the case of insurance, the whole simply becomes unviable. In a society, we agree to help each other so we can all live a better life, and that means all of us working together and pitching in even if we do not immediately benefit. That's the basics of the societal contract.
Now to answer your questions; wouldn't it be possible to to solve all of those with... believe it or not... moral laws? We can after all collect money, and then decide not to spend it on torture programs and mass surveillance. We have after all managed not to have any concentration camps or ethnic cleasnings so far. Maybe instead we can put that money towards the services it's meant for, like public travel networks, a proper education system, nationial parks that everyone can enjoy and benefit from if they want, and a strong welfare system so the sick and poor are not utterly screwed in life. Not collecting any tax money to prevent these egregious things is akin to outlawing food to prevent food poisoning.
There is nothing "violent" about collecting taxes. That's not an exaggeration or mischaracterization in bad faith, it's an outright lie. Sure, because a lot of people have misconceptions over what...
Sacrifice implies a voluntary action. You're using euphemisms to shield the aggressive/violent nature of what you actually describe. Insurance is also typically an voluntary transaction or it was until the ACA (another tax) came along to force the issue.
There is nothing "violent" about collecting taxes. That's not an exaggeration or mischaracterization in bad faith, it's an outright lie.
There you go with the good sounding abstractions again. I (and many others) explicitly do not agree.
Sure, because a lot of people have misconceptions over what the Deceleration of Independence means by that. You see, the federal government does not rely on the consent of the governed; the federal government relies on the consent of the Constitution and the various Supreme Court cases that also define its constitutionality, that explicitly rule that it has the right to exist, and the domains it's guaranteed power over. If you want to overthrow or eliminate the federal government, you need to overthrow or eliminate the Constitution. Since the Constitution does not have limits on the citizens it applies to, the only way you're going to accomplish that is through force or war. I suspect if the surveyors had mentioned that in the question, the answers would look very different.
Better by whose standards? Some people's idea of the good life is to do drugs, some people's idea of the good life is to play with bump stocks in the safety of their own backyard.
Better in the sense that you would not be able to buy a bump stock that not made in the same city as you because without public taxes there would be no public roads. Better in the sense you can type this comment because without public taxes there would be no regulated electricity and it would remain the domain of the rich. Better in that you would not be able to write because there would be no public education system for you. It's not hard to find things that improve everyone's life, regardless of how individual you feel.
It has been shown that the policy preferences of average americans have no significant impact on public policy decisions.
Although it should be noted that the US has among the lowest voting turnouts of any developed country, meaning that millions intentionally throw away their ability to impact decisions, the understanding is legitimate. Through gerrymandering and the weakening of investigatory oversight over the last 2 years especially, we've seen that increasingly most of our elected officials feel very little pressure to change their stances even when they know the public strongly disagrees. Marijuana is still not legalized despite strong public support, net neutrality has not been restored despite overwhelming (80%+) favor, and the current administration has shown zero intentions to take concrete steps to fix our broken public transit, which is also highly demanded. Instead it's decided to piddle time and money in building a wall 2/3 of people don't want, it's decided to roll back funding and protection to our national parks which nobody has asked for, it gave a large tax cut to corporations which most public citizens don't want.
I feel your frustration too, it seems like very little of what we do or say has any impact. However. If the response from people is to become defeatist and apathetic, and insist nothing can change, they become part of the problem. That's more votes that could have been used to fuel change instead go to waste. If even just half of people who are eligible to vote but don't committed to doing so this midterm, that would be a significant blow in the right direction.
The power to tax is the power to destroy and power always corrupts. As long as government has the power to appropriate without end it will be incredibly desirable to buy influence in that government. Black markets find a way.
There is nothing to destroy without taxes in the first place. Here's a list of the US states ranked by human development index, a calculation that rates the average standard of living for an average citizen. Take a look at states near the top and the ones near the bottom; now compare the tax policies of each. Now take a look at the middle of this index. Although there are a few outliers, such as NH at the top, the overall trend is that heavily taxed states consistently rank significantly higher in overall quality of life. This goes for countries too; Canada, New Zealand, Denmark, all enjoy a significantly higher average standard of living then the US does even though according to your statement their draconian levels of taxes should make them unlivable. Your feelings and perceptions fail to apply in the real world, and if you want to cut back any sort of taxes and all government services, you are effectively left with an anarchy.
Funny that the article mentions a sinkhole impacting the Mar-a-lago vacation home for the president too. If I were religious, I might see a sign somewhere in these coincidental tea leaves.
Do you drive on roads, rely on police and firemen to protect yourself or your property, use any social services or rely on any regulatory bodies to keep you, the food you eat and the products you use safe? If so, you're not being robbed you're just paying your fair share. That's how society and civilization works. If you want to live in a libertarian paradise, time travel to Somalia or Liberia during the chaos there in the 90s and let me know how that works out for you.
For same reason insurance charges you money even if you never cash out. Collective benefit relies on individual sacrifice; if people only pay for what they use, like in the case of insurance, the whole simply becomes unviable. In a society, we agree to help each other so we can all live a better life, and that means all of us working together and pitching in even if we do not immediately benefit. That's the basics of the societal contract.
Now to answer your questions; wouldn't it be possible to to solve all of those with... believe it or not... moral laws? We can after all collect money, and then decide not to spend it on torture programs and mass surveillance. We have after all managed not to have any concentration camps or ethnic cleasnings so far. Maybe instead we can put that money towards the services it's meant for, like public travel networks, a proper education system, nationial parks that everyone can enjoy and benefit from if they want, and a strong welfare system so the sick and poor are not utterly screwed in life. Not collecting any tax money to prevent these egregious things is akin to outlawing food to prevent food poisoning.
There is nothing "violent" about collecting taxes. That's not an exaggeration or mischaracterization in bad faith, it's an outright lie.
Sure, because a lot of people have misconceptions over what the Deceleration of Independence means by that. You see, the federal government does not rely on the consent of the governed; the federal government relies on the consent of the Constitution and the various Supreme Court cases that also define its constitutionality, that explicitly rule that it has the right to exist, and the domains it's guaranteed power over. If you want to overthrow or eliminate the federal government, you need to overthrow or eliminate the Constitution. Since the Constitution does not have limits on the citizens it applies to, the only way you're going to accomplish that is through force or war. I suspect if the surveyors had mentioned that in the question, the answers would look very different.
Better in the sense that you would not be able to buy a bump stock that not made in the same city as you because without public taxes there would be no public roads. Better in the sense you can type this comment because without public taxes there would be no regulated electricity and it would remain the domain of the rich. Better in that you would not be able to write because there would be no public education system for you. It's not hard to find things that improve everyone's life, regardless of how individual you feel.
Although it should be noted that the US has among the lowest voting turnouts of any developed country, meaning that millions intentionally throw away their ability to impact decisions, the understanding is legitimate. Through gerrymandering and the weakening of investigatory oversight over the last 2 years especially, we've seen that increasingly most of our elected officials feel very little pressure to change their stances even when they know the public strongly disagrees. Marijuana is still not legalized despite strong public support, net neutrality has not been restored despite overwhelming (80%+) favor, and the current administration has shown zero intentions to take concrete steps to fix our broken public transit, which is also highly demanded. Instead it's decided to piddle time and money in building a wall 2/3 of people don't want, it's decided to roll back funding and protection to our national parks which nobody has asked for, it gave a large tax cut to corporations which most public citizens don't want.
I feel your frustration too, it seems like very little of what we do or say has any impact. However. If the response from people is to become defeatist and apathetic, and insist nothing can change, they become part of the problem. That's more votes that could have been used to fuel change instead go to waste. If even just half of people who are eligible to vote but don't committed to doing so this midterm, that would be a significant blow in the right direction.
There is nothing to destroy without taxes in the first place. Here's a list of the US states ranked by human development index, a calculation that rates the average standard of living for an average citizen. Take a look at states near the top and the ones near the bottom; now compare the tax policies of each. Now take a look at the middle of this index. Although there are a few outliers, such as NH at the top, the overall trend is that heavily taxed states consistently rank significantly higher in overall quality of life. This goes for countries too; Canada, New Zealand, Denmark, all enjoy a significantly higher average standard of living then the US does even though according to your statement their draconian levels of taxes should make them unlivable. Your feelings and perceptions fail to apply in the real world, and if you want to cut back any sort of taxes and all government services, you are effectively left with an anarchy.