6 ms·

I understand the point that preferences are not homogeneous across the population, and therefore there will always be a portion - often a significant portion -

I understand the point that preferences are not homogeneous across the population, and therefore there will always be a portion - often a significant portion - of government spending that any given citizen will disagree with. But I would argue that a significant amount of spending by the government is purely wasteful. Furthermore, one of the most useful roles of government, in my opinion, should be the efficient allocation of societal resources. Appeasement strategies for special interest groups are the furthest you can possibly get from that. Ethanol pledges that deepen dependence on inefficient and damaging businesses, zoning laws that create hard and increasingly intraversible class splits between property-owning Eloi and the forever wage-slaving Morlocks, and continued investment in an unreasonably sized military infrastructure are good for certain interests, but overall bad for society as a whole. If the government consistently makes decisions that are bad for society as a whole, I would posit that it is failing at a critical role. If that is the case, then a certain portion of wealth going to actually good causes rather than the government would be a good thing, not an ethical violation. If the government cannot be relied on to spend the wealth of its people responsibly - if instead it fritters that resource away in power games and appeasement - then avoiding said taxes is not, fundamentally, immoral. Off the top of my head for other bad and expensive government programs, there's the TSA and other Department of Homeland Security initiatives that fall under the umbrella of Security Theater; the support, both legal and economic, of the private prison industry; arms sales to ethically dubious partners; political vanity projects like the "Bridge to Nowhere"; ideologically driven propaganda (Reefer Madness, anyone?); and straight-up war crimes. Representative government may be a good reflection of the people - I have misgivings about that claim, but I'll let them go - but the people should demand better than a reflection. I don't want my moral equal leading me; I want someone better. I want someone who isn't afraid to make an unpopular decision when it's the right thing to do.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
> If the government consistently makes decisions that are bad for society as a whole, I would posit that it is failing at a critical role. Ok, but who's fault is that? We are the ones who vote for these people. > If that is the case, then a certain portion of wealth going to actually good causes rather than the government would be a good thing, not an ethical violation. If the government cannot be relied on to spend the wealth of its people responsibly - if instead it fritters that resource away in power games and appeasement - then avoiding said taxes is not, fundamentally, immoral. I disagree because fundamentally taxes are used to support public services that benefit society as a whole. Cheating that process is cheating society. You may have the luxury of being able to forego many of those services but a lot of people do not. > Off the top of my head for other bad and expensive government programs, there's the TSA and other Department of Homeland Security initiatives that fall under the umbrella of Security Theater; the support, both legal and economic, of the private prison industry; arms sales to ethically dubious partners; political vanity projects like the "Bridge to Nowhere"; ideologically driven propaganda (Reefer Madness, anyone?); and straight-up war crimes. Yes, and I strongly encourage us to use our power in the democratic process to oppose those things. If people really didn't want those things, they would vote for politicians who also didn't support them. The fact that they don't means that they have other priorities in selecting politicians and are willing to compromise on those things. > Representative government may be a good reflection of the people - I have misgivings about that claim, but I'll let them go - but the people should demand better than a reflection. I think that's a very strange statement. If we want our government to be better all we have to do is vote for better people even if it is not in our individual best interest. You are demanding that the government be better than the people who elect it, but that very demand can only possibly be implemented by said people! > I want someone better. I want someone who isn't afraid to make an unpopular decision when it's the right thing to do. Then vote for that person and encourage others to do so, that's how our society works. You are extremely arrogant to think that you should be able to dictate to society how it should work and then get pissed off when it doesn't listen to you and claim moral superiority by not paying your taxes.
- endominus 5y ago
  >I disagree because fundamentally taxes are used to support public services that benefit society as a whole. A large part of my point is that this claim is not true. The purpose of a system is what it does. Taxes are used to appease constituents, not improve society. They may be related, they may overlap at some points, but they are not the same. >The fact that they don't means that they have other priorities in selecting politicians and are willing to compromise on those things. Not necessarily. People aren't machines of pure rationality. They do not vote for their best interests or their moral beliefs. They are misled and trained against seeking alternatives. They vote for their "tribe," not out of a sense of moral duty. And your impression of democracy is extremely idealistic - you should read the book Democracy for Realists. It sheds a lot of light on the actual patterns and causes of voting behavior. In any case, votes don't matter as much as you think they do. The democratic process acts more as a relief valve for societal tension than an effective method of enacting change in government. Policy implementations remain relatively static across the aisle; much ado is made over the 5% difference between blue and red, and every other position on the political spectrum is quietly kept out of the public's eye. >If we want our government to be better all we have to do is vote for better people Strongly disagree. "Better people" doesn't fix the problem, just like "Kill the dictator" doesn't fix the problem. The problem is systemic. One good person in a position of power, two people - it doesn't matter. The solutions to this problem, historically, have been extremely painful for the societies implementing them. Hopefully the US can do better, but I've never been an optimist. >Then vote for that person and encourage others to do so, that's how our society works. You are extremely arrogant to think that you should be able to dictate to society how it should work and then get pissed off when it doesn't listen to you and claim moral superiority by not paying your taxes. 1. I don't have voting rights. 2. I'm not dictating how society should work, I'm explaining my preferences and ideals for government. 3. I'm not angry, just disappointed. 4. I'm not claiming moral superiority, just denying moral inferiority. 5. I pay my taxes.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    The way you describe it one may as well believe that democracy is just a dictatorship with some handwaving. You blame "the system" or "the political machine" to alleviate responsibility for poor outcomes. The fact is that we, as a people, have significant levels of control over our government and yet we have a shitty result. We are simply not as good and smart as we like to think we are. Regardless, I don't think a billionaire looking at the elected government of their country and saying "I know better than the people you elected, so I am justified in evading taxes and spending that money how I think it should be spent" is a morally justified position even if it is true.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

> If the government consistently makes decisions that are bad for society as a whole, I would posit that it is failing at a critical role. Ok, but who's fault is that? We are the ones who vote for these people. > If that is the case, then a certain portion of wealth going to actually good causes rather than the government would be a good thing, not an ethical violation. If the government cannot be relied on to spend the wealth of its people responsibly - if instead it fritters that resource away in power games and appeasement - then avoiding said taxes is not, fundamentally, immoral. I disagree because fundamentally taxes are used to support public services that benefit society as a whole. Cheating that process is cheating society. You may have the luxury of being able to forego many of those services but a lot of people do not. > Off the top of my head for other bad and expensive government programs, there's the TSA and other Department of Homeland Security initiatives that fall under the umbrella of Security Theater; the support, both legal and economic, of the private prison industry; arms sales to ethically dubious partners; political vanity projects like the "Bridge to Nowhere"; ideologically driven propaganda (Reefer Madness, anyone?); and straight-up war crimes. Yes, and I strongly encourage us to use our power in the democratic process to oppose those things. If people really didn't want those things, they would vote for politicians who also didn't support them. The fact that they don't means that they have other priorities in selecting politicians and are willing to compromise on those things. > Representative government may be a good reflection of the people - I have misgivings about that claim, but I'll let them go - but the people should demand better than a reflection. I think that's a very strange statement. If we want our government to be better all we have to do is vote for better people even if it is not in our individual best interest. You are demanding that the government be better than the people who elect it, but that very demand can only possibly be implemented by said people! > I want someone better. I want someone who isn't afraid to make an unpopular decision when it's the right thing to do. Then vote for that person and encourage others to do so, that's how our society works. You are extremely arrogant to think that you should be able to dictate to society how it should work and then get pissed off when it doesn't listen to you and claim moral superiority by not paying your taxes.

endominus 5y ago
>I disagree because fundamentally taxes are used to support public services that benefit society as a whole. A large part of my point is that this claim is not true. The purpose of a system is what it does. Taxes are used to appease constituents, not improve society. They may be related, they may overlap at some points, but they are not the same. >The fact that they don't means that they have other priorities in selecting politicians and are willing to compromise on those things. Not necessarily. People aren't machines of pure rationality. They do not vote for their best interests or their moral beliefs. They are misled and trained against seeking alternatives. They vote for their "tribe," not out of a sense of moral duty. And your impression of democracy is extremely idealistic - you should read the book Democracy for Realists. It sheds a lot of light on the actual patterns and causes of voting behavior. In any case, votes don't matter as much as you think they do. The democratic process acts more as a relief valve for societal tension than an effective method of enacting change in government. Policy implementations remain relatively static across the aisle; much ado is made over the 5% difference between blue and red, and every other position on the political spectrum is quietly kept out of the public's eye. >If we want our government to be better all we have to do is vote for better people Strongly disagree. "Better people" doesn't fix the problem, just like "Kill the dictator" doesn't fix the problem. The problem is systemic. One good person in a position of power, two people - it doesn't matter. The solutions to this problem, historically, have been extremely painful for the societies implementing them. Hopefully the US can do better, but I've never been an optimist. >Then vote for that person and encourage others to do so, that's how our society works. You are extremely arrogant to think that you should be able to dictate to society how it should work and then get pissed off when it doesn't listen to you and claim moral superiority by not paying your taxes. 1. I don't have voting rights. 2. I'm not dictating how society should work, I'm explaining my preferences and ideals for government. 3. I'm not angry, just disappointed. 4. I'm not claiming moral superiority, just denying moral inferiority. 5. I pay my taxes.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  The way you describe it one may as well believe that democracy is just a dictatorship with some handwaving. You blame "the system" or "the political machine" to alleviate responsibility for poor outcomes. The fact is that we, as a people, have significant levels of control over our government and yet we have a shitty result. We are simply not as good and smart as we like to think we are. Regardless, I don't think a billionaire looking at the elected government of their country and saying "I know better than the people you elected, so I am justified in evading taxes and spending that money how I think it should be spent" is a morally justified position even if it is true.