4 ms·
It's not based on that premise, no. A person can think that the country should tax its citizens to protect them, while simultaneously think that the country sh
by brucephillips 9y ago
It's not based on that premise, no. A person can think that the country should tax its citizens to protect them, while simultaneously think that the country should not tax its citizens to redistribute wealth.
- bocajuniors 9y agoSocieties with more evenly distributed wealth tends to have lower crime rates.
- pgeorgi 9y ago> the country should not tax its citizens to redistribute wealth. The army is also a huge wealth distribution machine: Raytheon or Boeing are businesses, and army personnel presumably is paid, too. > tax its citizens to protect them For example, from life threatening conditions. Same statements, different cherry picking -> entirely different results.
- pjc50 9y ago> A person can think that the country should tax its citizens to protect them Ah, so you are in favour of universal socialised health care! (/joking, mostly. But I feel that protecting citizens only from other humans but not from the far more deadly problems of disease and ill-health is a very limited view. If the US really believed in the inherent superiority of the private model, it would use it for its troops. No medevac if you've not paid your premiums!)
- AsyncAwait 9y agoSo protecting its citizens using military force is fine, not wealth redistribution, but taking care of its sick citizens, (arguably the ones needing the most protection), is somehow questionable?