3 ms·

So you are saying that it's better to rely on the charitable feelings of random individuals rather than having a democratically elected government determine whe

by mateo1 4y ago

So you are saying that it's better to rely on the charitable feelings of random individuals rather than having a democratically elected government determine where the money needs to be spend? And what about the rest of the millionaires who don't care about anyone other than themselves? Do they get to benefit from the collective effort of everyone else and pay nothing for it?

proc0 4y ago
> So you are saying that it's better to rely on the charitable feelings of random individuals rather than having a democratically elected government where the money needs to be spend? Why doesn't government make the profit themselves to then help people, instead of using taxes? Why not create more non-profits that are self-sustainable? Yes, IMHO, all we have is to rely on the goodwill of others. Even when it comes to taxes, we're expecting people won't use loopholes and evade paying them, yet that's what happens anyway. Not only is government extremely slow and wasteful at solving problems, coercion is not effective. I think we already pay more than enough taxes to solve most problems in society. For example, San Francisco has spent billions on trying to solve homelessness and failed pretty hard at it. I think billions of dollars should be enough to solve the homeless situation in one city, so I think the first question is why is it that the current taxes isn't enough? (and also as I mentioned, where is the accountability)
- usednet 4y ago
  How exactly do you suggest the federal government create 4 trillion dollars in yearly profits?
  - proc0 4y ago
    I'm not suggesting they replace all taxes, but rather if they need extra money maybe they should create non-profits that are good enough to not need public funding, or at least not waste everyone's money with failing policies over and over.
hitovst 4y ago
There is nothing more important than freedom, including life, which is why real patriots will give their life to protect it. Without property rights, there isn't freedom. Forced redistribution of wealth is slavery, and dysgenic.

by mateo1 4y ago

proc0 4y ago

> So you are saying that it's better to rely on the charitable feelings of random individuals rather than having a democratically elected government where the money needs to be spend? Why doesn't government make the profit themselves to then help people, instead of using taxes? Why not create more non-profits that are self-sustainable? Yes, IMHO, all we have is to rely on the goodwill of others. Even when it comes to taxes, we're expecting people won't use loopholes and evade paying them, yet that's what happens anyway. Not only is government extremely slow and wasteful at solving problems, coercion is not effective. I think we already pay more than enough taxes to solve most problems in society. For example, San Francisco has spent billions on trying to solve homelessness and failed pretty hard at it. I think billions of dollars should be enough to solve the homeless situation in one city, so I think the first question is why is it that the current taxes isn't enough? (and also as I mentioned, where is the accountability)

usednet 4y ago
How exactly do you suggest the federal government create 4 trillion dollars in yearly profits?
- proc0 4y ago
  I'm not suggesting they replace all taxes, but rather if they need extra money maybe they should create non-profits that are good enough to not need public funding, or at least not waste everyone's money with failing policies over and over.

hitovst 4y ago

There is nothing more important than freedom, including life, which is why real patriots will give their life to protect it. Without property rights, there isn't freedom. Forced redistribution of wealth is slavery, and dysgenic.