5 ms·

You wouldn't necessarily need to shut down social programs. Rich people and their companies own lots of property, spectrum, water rights, intellectual property,

You wouldn't necessarily need to shut down social programs. Rich people and their companies own lots of property, spectrum, water rights, intellectual property, etc, and the funding from these taxes can still be used to fund a social safety net. As a bonus, if property taxes (or better yet, land value taxes) were 5x what they are, we probably would fix the housing crisis as all the property hoarders unload their underutilized property onto the market.

alphanullmeric 3y ago
Nobody said anything about shutting down social programs, you can still have those without forcing people that don’t use them to pay for it. Like I said, pay your fair share. The USPS for the most part is an example of a government service that operates only off of voluntary funding from its users.
- fleventynine 3y ago
  I'm confused, are you suggesting that malnourished kids should pay for their own lunch (or for that matter, education?). There are some services we have to collectively pay for to live in a stable society.
  - alphanullmeric 3y ago
    I’m suggesting that someone not willing to pay their own fair share should not pretend others are not willing to pay theirs.
    - kevviiinn 3y ago
      But you aren't answering the question, if a program for people in poverty isn't funded by society as a whole, are you having the people in poverty fund it because they're the ones who use it? Your argument seems to break down under examination
      - alphanullmeric 3y ago
        I answered the question before it was asked. If you want such a program to exist, you pay for it. If your idea is to make me pay for it, you don’t believe in paying your fair share. Whether or not it is practical to follow my rule to the absolute is a different question. I’m just tired of hearing the fair share people justify not paying their fair share.
        flangola7 3y ago
        > I’m just tired of hearing the fair share people justify not paying their fair share. I frankly have no idea who you are talking about. You're going to have to elaborate because right now it sounds like a cheap strawman.
        kevviiinn 3y ago
        No you haven't but what you have done is move the goal posts. Here is your previous statement: >Nobody said anything about shutting down social programs, you can still have those without forcing people that don’t use them to pay for it Which implies that the people paying for them are the ones using them
        throwway120385 3y ago
        There are entire enterprises that operate by this principle. Private Insurance comes to mind first. The problem with insurance and with this philosophy in general is that there are a lot of catestrophic situations you can find yourself in for which you would likely purchase no insurance because you can't ever see yourself being there. The reason government steps in in cases like loss of job and provision of welfare is because nobody ever expects to be in those situations. But when you end up in those situations, having not bought insurance prior to being there, you will naturally find them pernicious. In order to prevent that from happening, government programs provide a kind of nationwide or statewide insurance policy that you are bought into by default just in case you should happen to need it some day. You're arguing that you never will, and that might be the case, but that's also strictly speaking a risky proposition if aggregated over the entire population of the US.

alphanullmeric 3y ago

Nobody said anything about shutting down social programs, you can still have those without forcing people that don’t use them to pay for it. Like I said, pay your fair share. The USPS for the most part is an example of a government service that operates only off of voluntary funding from its users.

fleventynine 3y ago
I'm confused, are you suggesting that malnourished kids should pay for their own lunch (or for that matter, education?). There are some services we have to collectively pay for to live in a stable society.
- alphanullmeric 3y ago
  I’m suggesting that someone not willing to pay their own fair share should not pretend others are not willing to pay theirs.
  - kevviiinn 3y ago
    But you aren't answering the question, if a program for people in poverty isn't funded by society as a whole, are you having the people in poverty fund it because they're the ones who use it? Your argument seems to break down under examination
    - alphanullmeric 3y ago
      I answered the question before it was asked. If you want such a program to exist, you pay for it. If your idea is to make me pay for it, you don’t believe in paying your fair share. Whether or not it is practical to follow my rule to the absolute is a different question. I’m just tired of hearing the fair share people justify not paying their fair share.
      - flangola7 3y ago
        > I’m just tired of hearing the fair share people justify not paying their fair share. I frankly have no idea who you are talking about. You're going to have to elaborate because right now it sounds like a cheap strawman.
      - kevviiinn 3y ago
        No you haven't but what you have done is move the goal posts. Here is your previous statement: >Nobody said anything about shutting down social programs, you can still have those without forcing people that don’t use them to pay for it Which implies that the people paying for them are the ones using them
      - throwway120385 3y ago
        There are entire enterprises that operate by this principle. Private Insurance comes to mind first. The problem with insurance and with this philosophy in general is that there are a lot of catestrophic situations you can find yourself in for which you would likely purchase no insurance because you can't ever see yourself being there. The reason government steps in in cases like loss of job and provision of welfare is because nobody ever expects to be in those situations. But when you end up in those situations, having not bought insurance prior to being there, you will naturally find them pernicious. In order to prevent that from happening, government programs provide a kind of nationwide or statewide insurance policy that you are bought into by default just in case you should happen to need it some day. You're arguing that you never will, and that might be the case, but that's also strictly speaking a risky proposition if aggregated over the entire population of the US.