Re: Not to be smug or anything, but...


"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:nkZ2j.3940$_%4.3477@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Misc-DB4F28.06373727112007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <5r2j1rF1252h2U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Alex W." <ingilt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

However, I do believe that our society provides the framework for the
accumulation of wealth. Without the roads and infrastructure, the laws,
the
predictability and reliability of government, and especially without the
enforcement of property and other civil rights through the support of
both
state and our fellow citizens, it would not be possible for any of us to
create the wealth in the first place.

And the violation of those property right via redistribution? A bit of
consistency here from Alex would be nice. Instead, we get numerous
contradictions.

Taxation is not redistribution per se. In principle, it is necessary for
the very survival of a society and state. Turn it any way you like, it
costs money to run a country, even if you were living in a Libertarian
paradise. Moreover, as a citizen or resident you assume an obligation to
support your country, in deed (think military service or jury duty), word
("I swear allegiance to the flag ...") and substance (taxation). The state
performs services and enables you to pursue life, liberty and happiness --
it is only right that these services should be paid for.

If we were talking expropriation through claiming eminent domain or
explicitly redistributive taxation such as post-war British inheritance
taxes of 90% which were designed expressly to break up the large fortunes of
the upper classes, that would be a different matter.



Look at any country where the
political and social eonvironment is not so benign: there, all that
happens
is the theft of wealth from everybody else to benefit a very small group
whose only qualification is membership of the ruling elite. Does this
not
deserve some recompense?

No.

Certainly not forceful recompense. If someone wants to voluntarily
leave something in the government's tip jar in appreciation for "all
they've done for us" (ahem!), I certainly don't begrudge that.

It's called the "proper functions of government". It's based on the very
nature of "what government is".

Redistribution by extortion is a travesty. Often, it stems from "group
think".

If the funding of government operations were voluntary, government would be
bankrupt by spring.



However,
forceful extraction of nearly half the fruit of my labor is not "some
recompense", it's "theft of wealth [...by] the ruling elite."

Especially when 3/4ths of that goes for redistribution.

More like 5/4ths. Not only does government spend every cent they take in
through taxation, they also print some and issue IOUs for lots more. None
of that is kept back, it all lands back in circulation.

The issue is *effective* use of money, and that is a whole different kettle
of smelly fish.




If the government only took what they were rightfully due (as you seem
to be arguing), far fewer people would be griping about it.

Many say that government is "a necessary evil"; it's not. A proper
government is indicative of a good and noble civilization. It only becomes
evil when it oversteps it's natural role and functions. That is: to
protect (not abrogate) rights. Further, rights are not privileges, nor do
they amass based on your race, gender, marital status, etc. (group think).

Without a proper definition of rights, the proper role of government can
never be defined.

Rights and liberties are relatively clearly defined and continue to be
tested and clarified every single day through the courts and legislative
process.

Oddly enough, far fewer people are interested in the duties that go along
with those rights. Everybody and their female black disabled gay cousin
bleats on about their rights. Let's hear some about duties. Going by the
figures, barely one in two who read this post will bother to support their
democratic system by getting their fat arse down to the polling station to
pull a lever or tick a box. Far fewer still volunteer to do a turn helping
to defend their country in one of the armed services. And if anyone here
claims to never have cheated on their taxes even though, horribly
inefficient as the system may be, it still pays for every soldier,
court-room and ER facility that all countries utterly depend on for
survival, I will sneer politely in a superior British way and call him a
liar. We are always so busy debating the proper role of government and what
they may and may not legitimately do that we tend to forget to conduct the
equally vital debate on what may and may not be expected of a citizen by way
of contribution and support.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Not to be smug or anything, but...
    ... enforcement of property and other civil rights through the support of ... create the wealth in the first place. ... It's called the "proper functions of government". ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: Not to be smug or anything, but...
    ... Many say that government is "a necessary evil"; ... evil when it oversteps it's natural role and functions. ... Further, rights are not privileges, nor do they amass ... Without a proper definition of rights, the proper role of government can ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... What you have now is what the government allows you to have. ... I see, so I should just give up my rights now without a fight, and then ... Another empty tactic of gun control, ... project a willingness to support more restrictive gun control. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: ot:ot:ot flag burning amendment
    ... >>>Militia is necessary for the security of a free state, ... presupposes the independent existence of rights, ... have no existence before government grants them. ... beliefs, philosophy, etc. as does mine, of course. ...
    (alt.support.mult-sclerosis)
  • Rick Stanley RATIONALE FOR LETHAL FORCE AGAINST GOVERNMENT AGENTS WHO USURP POWER
    ... RATIONALE FOR LETHAL FORCE AGAINST GOVERNMENT AGENTS WHO USURP POWER ... > generally, for individual rights. ... > "The Constitution of the United States was ordained, it is true, by ...
    (talk.politics.guns)