DanieltheDragon wrote:
[
Replying to post 35 by bluethread]
Oh taxes are extortion? Good luck using any roads and hospitals. Forget being protected by the military or police. Why don't we get rid of the fire dept as well. Reality dictates policy a no tax policy is a no government policy. Seeing as how the majority of people you live around want a government whether big or small means there will be taxes and there will be government.If you have agreed to live in the United States you have agreed to be its taxes where applicable. That is not extortion that's rent.
This is not a single point, but a series of assumptions. Let's look at them one at a time.
First, the means of collection has nothing to do with the use of the funds. When something is taken from someone under treat of fine and/or imprisonment, that is extortion. One may argue that extortion is necessary in some cases, but it is still extortion.
Second, the military and arbitrating disputes between the states is necessary in a federation, which I consider to be better than a confederation, where the states provides for their own defense and work out their own disputes. Beyond that, I do not think the federal government should have any other authority. However, that can be debated. However, I don't know of hardly anyone who believes the federal government should have authority over everything.
Third, many localities have private roads, hospitals, fire departments and even police. There are also ones that are funded through levies, i.e. funds collected for a specific purpose. Federal funding for things such as science and the arts are not funded in this way, so the citizenry has little say in how those funds are spent. This is a perfect opportunity for grant padding and log rolling.
Fourth, it is true, as Toqueville said, when people can vote themselves largess democracy is done. However, that does not mean that it is right to continue down that road. Yes, taxation has undermined property rights, but that does not mean that is right. The phrase "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence does not mean largess from the government, but was, in fact, property, in the first draft. It was changed because that might have given the impression that everyone has a right to have property.
Fifth, living in these United States does not obligate one to just accept the system as it is. In fact, the first amendment grants one the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Therefore, no, living here does not obligate one to accept the status quo.
Both the states and congress are given authority to levy taxes. As a democracy we decide as a country and/or state where the funds are spent. There are anarchic collectives that don't tax, though.
Two points. First, the States and Congress derive there powers from the governed and again as the Declaration states, "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,". Second, as a republic, on the federal level, it is not us, but our representatives that decide where those funds are spent, and that includes deciding to not spend funds. So, if it is not appropriate for one to criticize the funding of certain projects, it is also inappropriate to criticize NOT funding those projects.
Having a science policy in America has helped make us the most powerful economic force the world has ever seen. Abandoning that would be economic and military suicide.
The first amendment permits you to voice that opinion. However, even if that is true, it does not mean that policy must be federally funded.
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.
