3 ms·

I don't think that we can classify government programs as being charities. Many of us believe in helping those who are in need, but for this was can give our mo

by noarchy 14y ago

I don't think that we can classify government programs as being charities. Many of us believe in helping those who are in need, but for this was can give our money and time freely to organizations that address certain issues. Governments take your money by force, and spend it on things for which you have no say. It isn't "society" doing it.

philbarr 14y ago
> "spend it on things for which you have no say" Yes you do, you have a vote. Each party standing for election presents a set of policies some of which include spending policy. The elected party then has a mandate to spend as per the policies outlined. That's how democracy works (well, how it's supposed to work). If you really had "no say" then that would be a dictatorship? And let's think about this a little further. Let's say the government doesn't take any money off you and everyone has to fend for themselves. Now, some people with more money are in a position to manipulate those with less money, and we are suddenly ruled by unelected corporations etc. Some argue it's like that already. This is all pretty standard left vs. right stuff.
- noarchy 14y ago
  >Yes you do, you have a vote. Each party standing for election presents a set of policies some of which include spending policy. The elected party then has a mandate to spend as per the policies outlined. That's how democracy works (well, how it's supposed to work). The latter part of your statement is what I agree with. We all know the theory, but we live the practice of democracy. And some of us have gradually quit buying into it. >And let's think about this a little further. Let's say the government doesn't take any money off you and everyone has to fend for themselves. Now, some people with more money are in a position to manipulate those with less money, and we are suddenly ruled by unelected corporations etc. Some argue it's like that already. I'd agree that it is essentially how things are already. The state-corporate partnership is quite a beast. Political influence is bought and sold as easily as stocks are. >This is all pretty standard left vs. right stuff. The left/right thing breaks down pretty quickly if you find that you loathe all of the major political parties our time. If you're a classical libertarian (or anarchist, depending on the term one prefers), for instance, there isn't a major party for you almost by definition.
king_jester 14y ago
> Many of us believe in helping those who are in need, but for this was can give our money and time freely to organizations that address certain issues. The whole reason gov't programs targeting social issues is because private charity failed to address them adequately or at all. > Governments take your money by force, and spend it on things for which you have no say. Governments do not take your money by force. People are not born in a vacuum and the services and programs you and your family take advantage of shape the experience of your life. That you yourself will pay into that system and its programs does not mean your money is taken by force, but rather you are contributing in the same way as others before you. This of course doesn't mean that governments cannot spend money wrongly or enact policies that are destructive towards people, but you are not being unfairly deprived just because you have to pay into services that you yourself will have benefited from, either directly or indirectly.
- noarchy 14y ago
  >Governments do not take your money by force. So everyone pays taxes voluntarily? Glad to hear we can get rid of the threatening language used in tax forms... clearly superfluous. Back to reality, with a thought experiment: imagine that government subsisted exclusively on voluntary contributions. No threats of fines, interest charges, or arrest and jail time. In other words, like an actual charity. That is the difference between force/coercion, and voluntary action.
  - king_jester 14y ago
    > So everyone pays taxes voluntarily? Glad to hear we can get rid of the threatening language used in tax forms... clearly superfluous. I'll retract what I said earlier, governments do employ force to collect various taxes (for those governments that collect taxes at all). > Back to reality, with a thought experiment: imagine that government subsisted exclusively on voluntary contributions. No threats of fines, interest charges, or arrest and jail time. In other words, like an actual charity. I'm not really sure that this is even possible. This implies that there is already material wealth or skills available to be contributed, but it sounds as though that kind of organization isn't collectivist and control is routed through some subset of a population. That social structure sounds really unstable, as its unlikely that the most established and wealthy will continue to ignore other members of society (as they do now).

by noarchy 14y ago

philbarr 14y ago

> "spend it on things for which you have no say" Yes you do, you have a vote. Each party standing for election presents a set of policies some of which include spending policy. The elected party then has a mandate to spend as per the policies outlined. That's how democracy works (well, how it's supposed to work). If you really had "no say" then that would be a dictatorship? And let's think about this a little further. Let's say the government doesn't take any money off you and everyone has to fend for themselves. Now, some people with more money are in a position to manipulate those with less money, and we are suddenly ruled by unelected corporations etc. Some argue it's like that already. This is all pretty standard left vs. right stuff.

noarchy 14y ago
>Yes you do, you have a vote. Each party standing for election presents a set of policies some of which include spending policy. The elected party then has a mandate to spend as per the policies outlined. That's how democracy works (well, how it's supposed to work). The latter part of your statement is what I agree with. We all know the theory, but we live the practice of democracy. And some of us have gradually quit buying into it. >And let's think about this a little further. Let's say the government doesn't take any money off you and everyone has to fend for themselves. Now, some people with more money are in a position to manipulate those with less money, and we are suddenly ruled by unelected corporations etc. Some argue it's like that already. I'd agree that it is essentially how things are already. The state-corporate partnership is quite a beast. Political influence is bought and sold as easily as stocks are. >This is all pretty standard left vs. right stuff. The left/right thing breaks down pretty quickly if you find that you loathe all of the major political parties our time. If you're a classical libertarian (or anarchist, depending on the term one prefers), for instance, there isn't a major party for you almost by definition.

king_jester 14y ago

> Many of us believe in helping those who are in need, but for this was can give our money and time freely to organizations that address certain issues. The whole reason gov't programs targeting social issues is because private charity failed to address them adequately or at all. > Governments take your money by force, and spend it on things for which you have no say. Governments do not take your money by force. People are not born in a vacuum and the services and programs you and your family take advantage of shape the experience of your life. That you yourself will pay into that system and its programs does not mean your money is taken by force, but rather you are contributing in the same way as others before you. This of course doesn't mean that governments cannot spend money wrongly or enact policies that are destructive towards people, but you are not being unfairly deprived just because you have to pay into services that you yourself will have benefited from, either directly or indirectly.

noarchy 14y ago
>Governments do not take your money by force. So everyone pays taxes voluntarily? Glad to hear we can get rid of the threatening language used in tax forms... clearly superfluous. Back to reality, with a thought experiment: imagine that government subsisted exclusively on voluntary contributions. No threats of fines, interest charges, or arrest and jail time. In other words, like an actual charity. That is the difference between force/coercion, and voluntary action.
- king_jester 14y ago
  > So everyone pays taxes voluntarily? Glad to hear we can get rid of the threatening language used in tax forms... clearly superfluous. I'll retract what I said earlier, governments do employ force to collect various taxes (for those governments that collect taxes at all). > Back to reality, with a thought experiment: imagine that government subsisted exclusively on voluntary contributions. No threats of fines, interest charges, or arrest and jail time. In other words, like an actual charity. I'm not really sure that this is even possible. This implies that there is already material wealth or skills available to be contributed, but it sounds as though that kind of organization isn't collectivist and control is routed through some subset of a population. That social structure sounds really unstable, as its unlikely that the most established and wealthy will continue to ignore other members of society (as they do now).