3 ms·

> I think this is the cynical view that paints it in an arrogant light. Because it is arrogant to say that vegans must subsidize milk production(which they do)

> I think this is the cynical view that paints it in an arrogant light. Because it is arrogant to say that vegans must subsidize milk production(which they do), it is arrogant to say that an atheist must pay compensate for Church tax exemptions... and the farther away the taxing authority, the more arrogant it is. The biggest issue that I have with my taxes here in US - subsidies for military to fight a war on behalf of the Saudis in Yemen. If you're willing to pay for or contribute to something bigger/better - then why use tax for it? > I mean, isn't this par for the course in any group environment When you voluntarily join said environment - sure. Funny... Being gay, growing up in Lithuania and living on $10 per week(between me and my mother) - I got to be libertarian well before I got to earn those 6 figures. PS: I also detest Ayn Rand.

bumby 6y ago
I think it's arrogant for the collective to assume they know what's best for the individual just as it's arrogant for the individual to think they know what is best at the group/societal level. I think everybody has policies that their tax dollars support that they don't agree with. That is part of the compromise of living in a society. I don't think the solution is to have individuals decide on each line item they are personally willing to support unless we want to be a yeoman farmer society. Modern society is too complex and I think the ship has sailed on that point. I do think there is room for middle ground. I think it would be useful for people to see, say, on their tax returns how much of their individual tax money goes to each high-level government agency. This would bring it out of the abstract and connect them more closely to those policies so they can adjust them to their particular values by voting at the polls while reducing the overall information budget they have to digest.

bumby 6y ago

I think it's arrogant for the collective to assume they know what's best for the individual just as it's arrogant for the individual to think they know what is best at the group/societal level. I think everybody has policies that their tax dollars support that they don't agree with. That is part of the compromise of living in a society. I don't think the solution is to have individuals decide on each line item they are personally willing to support unless we want to be a yeoman farmer society. Modern society is too complex and I think the ship has sailed on that point. I do think there is room for middle ground. I think it would be useful for people to see, say, on their tax returns how much of their individual tax money goes to each high-level government agency. This would bring it out of the abstract and connect them more closely to those policies so they can adjust them to their particular values by voting at the polls while reducing the overall information budget they have to digest.