3 ms·

> If you really cared about the poor, you would voluntarily donate money from your own pocket; you don't need a law for that. Instead, you want to use the legis

> If you really cared about the poor, you would voluntarily donate money from your own pocket; you don't need a law for that. Instead, you want to use the legislator to compel the others to the involuntary distribution of their hard-earned money. Why "instead"? Why can this person not both donate directly and wish that everyone else were obligated to do the same?

galfarragem 5y ago
Obligating people to do things that they don't agree with never lasts.
- egypturnash 5y ago
  The US’ military budget says otherwise.
- johnday 5y ago
  Not sure what you mean by this. Taxes are so ubiquitous that there's literally an idiom about it.
hellojesus 5y ago
Our nation is founded on liberty. > Why can this person not both donate directly and wish that everyone else were obligated to do the same? You are proposing the imposition of your ideals onto someone else, via theft, under the penalty of governmental violence/incarceration. The poster suggested that you take on the personal responsibility for righting what you perceive as an injustice in the world. I agree with them. Anything else would be tyranny, as others have pointed out.
- johnday 5y ago
  > Our nation is founded on liberty. I suspect we live in different nations, then. > You are proposing the imposition of your ideals onto someone else, via theft, under the penalty of governmental violence/incarceration. Is this your opinion of all taxes? If so, I'm surprised you manage to function day-to-day.
  - hellojesus 5y ago
    > I suspect we live in different nations, then. """ The American republic was founded on a set of beliefs that were tested during the Revolutionary War. Among them was the idea that all people are created equal, whether European, Native American, or African American, and that these people have fundamental rights, such as liberty, free speech, freedom of religion, due process of law, and freedom of assembly. America’s revolutionaries openly discussed these concepts. Many Americans agreed with them but some found that the ideology was far more acceptable in the abstract than in practice. """ https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/founded-on-a-set-of-beliefs.html https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/foun... > Is this your opinion of all taxes? If so, I'm surprised you manage to function day-to-day. I am of the belief that taxes are appropriate to fund the limited function that the government was designed to fulfill. Namely goods/services which are public, such as providing national defense and a legal system for enforcing the number one principle, "voluntary transactions okay. Involuntary transactions not okay." I am fine with taxes so long as they are providing a public good which cannot be met by the private sector due to factors such as nonexcludability. The types of things that are covered by that statement include things like national defense and law/policing such that the state can arbitrate on enforcement of private contracts as well as provide punishment for involuntary harm caused on a 3rd party. In fact, that is the primary reason the founders were specific in direct vs. indirect taxes. Such a distinction provides clarity around how much of a public good can be created and how they can be paid for in a relatively fair fashion. Excise taxes are primarily consumption based, and all indirect taxes are subject to apportionment. Hence the absurdity of the 16th ammendment. I do not consider wealth redistribution a function of the government, especially on the national level, as it is specifically excludable.

galfarragem 5y ago

Obligating people to do things that they don't agree with never lasts.

egypturnash 5y ago
The US’ military budget says otherwise.
johnday 5y ago
Not sure what you mean by this. Taxes are so ubiquitous that there's literally an idiom about it.

hellojesus 5y ago

Our nation is founded on liberty. > Why can this person not both donate directly and wish that everyone else were obligated to do the same? You are proposing the imposition of your ideals onto someone else, via theft, under the penalty of governmental violence/incarceration. The poster suggested that you take on the personal responsibility for righting what you perceive as an injustice in the world. I agree with them. Anything else would be tyranny, as others have pointed out.

johnday 5y ago
> Our nation is founded on liberty. I suspect we live in different nations, then. > You are proposing the imposition of your ideals onto someone else, via theft, under the penalty of governmental violence/incarceration. Is this your opinion of all taxes? If so, I'm surprised you manage to function day-to-day.
- hellojesus 5y ago
  > I suspect we live in different nations, then. """ The American republic was founded on a set of beliefs that were tested during the Revolutionary War. Among them was the idea that all people are created equal, whether European, Native American, or African American, and that these people have fundamental rights, such as liberty, free speech, freedom of religion, due process of law, and freedom of assembly. America’s revolutionaries openly discussed these concepts. Many Americans agreed with them but some found that the ideology was far more acceptable in the abstract than in practice. """ https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/founded-on-a-set-of-beliefs.html https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/foun... > Is this your opinion of all taxes? If so, I'm surprised you manage to function day-to-day. I am of the belief that taxes are appropriate to fund the limited function that the government was designed to fulfill. Namely goods/services which are public, such as providing national defense and a legal system for enforcing the number one principle, "voluntary transactions okay. Involuntary transactions not okay." I am fine with taxes so long as they are providing a public good which cannot be met by the private sector due to factors such as nonexcludability. The types of things that are covered by that statement include things like national defense and law/policing such that the state can arbitrate on enforcement of private contracts as well as provide punishment for involuntary harm caused on a 3rd party. In fact, that is the primary reason the founders were specific in direct vs. indirect taxes. Such a distinction provides clarity around how much of a public good can be created and how they can be paid for in a relatively fair fashion. Excise taxes are primarily consumption based, and all indirect taxes are subject to apportionment. Hence the absurdity of the 16th ammendment. I do not consider wealth redistribution a function of the government, especially on the national level, as it is specifically excludable.