|
|
I'm assuming this poll is about the country the respondent is in and not necessarily the USA.
I think the state exists to protect people from the initiation of force. For them to do that they must first stop harming us. This means stop confiscating wealth from us, which means they will need to stop spending money on education, health etc. and insteads leave that up to individual communities via voluntary means.
It's extremely vague. When saying "coast to coast" you surely need to qualify it. There are thousands upon thousands of different pairs of coasts they could be referring to. My crystal ball is broken - so which coasts is he talking about? Without any more information I assume it's the east and west coast of the North Island of New Zealand because that's where I live. I doubt they meant that though.
Exactly. When governments give themselves freedoms while taking the same freedoms away from their citizens, something is wrong.
You mean like the ability to tax people?
239ms consistent for me - Tauranga, New Zealand.
Other funding mechanisms include charity and user charges.
But everybody is a "user" of being protected from other people, and now we're right back to taxes.
I would help to fund a police force that protects my neighbour even though my neighbour would not. It's in my best interests to do so.
I don't think the state should protect people from themselves or from nature. That's what the community is for, via voluntary means.
So what should a community do with people who refuse to participate? Consider carefully how you choose your answer to this question; otherwise, you're right back to government services.
So long as those people are not harming other people then they get left alone. But they don't get to use any services that they do not pay for.
There are other ways of raising funds without resorting to extortion. Donations and lotteries come to mind.
A lottery is a tax on being bad at math. Where does law enforcement get its funding once people become no longer bad at math?
A lottery is not a tax when partaking is voluntary. Other funding mechanisms include charity and user charges.
You're missing the fact that in order to prevent one citizen from using force or fraud against another citizen, the state must use force and fraud against all citizens.
As for force, in this imperfect system of things, it is impossible to reduce total force and fraud to zero. The job of a tax-funded police force is to minimize the use of force. The job of a lot of other tax-funded services is to minimize situations that lead to poverty because desperation to survive is itself known to lead to the use of force. As for fraud, the laws are on the books for all to see. Please explain what you meant by government use of fraud against citizens.
I don't think the state should protect people from themselves or from nature. That's what the community is for, via voluntary means. The state should only protect people from other people.
I consider forcing someone to hand over their money using a threat of force to be a form of fraud. It may not be the best use of the word, but either way it's unethical and should be illegal.
It's hardly a country that loves freedom if it regulates people's personal lives like this.
Balderdash. Anyone can live with whomever he wants and can make whatever kind of promises or agreements he wants with whomever he wants. The government not giving a slip of paper endorsing or verifying their private decisions is not a form of regulating their personal lives--it's the opposite! It's refusing to be involved in it! How much more freedom do you require than lack of involvement?
Then why all this fuss about gay marriage? Why is bigamy illegal? Laws that criminalise those things restrict personal liberties.
And yet those taxes are still there. How can the US be pro freedom if it actively harms people by confiscating property off them using a threat of force?
You're being silly. Every nation in the world has taxes, and no nation could exist with zero taxes. Taxes have been around as long as death. Your argument is preposterous and irrational.
Just because all nations have taxation does not mean that it is impossible for a nation to exist without it. Just because taxation has been around for a long time doesn't mean it's not an infringement on our liberties.
I can't - but that doesn't mean (in any way at all) that the US is the bastian[sic] of freedom. It's not. Your government removes and dilutes your freedoms far too much.
All governments do--that's their basic function. Only by the vigilance of its citizens does a nation preserve its liberty.
The basic function of government should be to protect people from harm. They shouldn't be the ones doing the harming.
Thankfully, our basic rights which allow us to be vigilant are enshrined in our founding documents, a claim which few nations can make.
Is the US perfect? Hardly. Is it getting worse? Perhaps. Is there any freer nation? No.
But, hey, bashing America is easy and popular, so why not join the mob?
I'm not bashing the USA. I'm bashing all countries that dilute the freedoms of its citizens. (Which is all countries). Some are much better than others.
It's hardly a country that loves freedom if it regulates people's personal lives like this.
It's a federal country. You have the freedom to leave a state that doesn't respect your freedom for one that does.
So you're saying that the US is pro-freedom, except for when it's not and in those cases you can go and live somewhere else?
How can the US be pro freedom if it actively harms people by confiscating property off them using a threat of force?
Without taxation, there is no way to fund a court or police force.
There are other ways of raising funds without resorting to extortion. Donations and lotteries come to mind.
Without those, there is no way to enforce the laws against a private citizen using force or fraud to coerce another private citizen. Or what am I missing?
You're missing the fact that in order to prevent one citizen from using force or fraud against another citizen, the state must use force and fraud against all citizens.
If their goal is to protect people from the initiation of force then they lost immediately when they fund it via compulsory means.
Unless you are gay and want to marry.
There are many places in America where gays can marry, and more states are considering it. We are moving in the right direction.
It's hardly a country that loves freedom if it regulates people's personal lives like this.
Want to earn a living without the state confiscating some of it from you.
American taxes are among the developed world's lowest.
And yet those taxes are still there. How can the US be pro freedom if it actively harms people by confiscating property off them using a threat of force?
None of that indicates the US is pro-freedom.
Would you care to name someplace better?
I can't - but that doesn't mean (in any way at all) that the US is the bastian of freedom. It's not. Your government removes and dilutes your freedoms far too much.
I like the US forcing its American Way on others, insofar as it means freedom.
Unless you are gay and want to marry.
Want your children to learn real science in school and not pseudo-babble based on superstition.
Want to earn a living without the state confiscating some of it from you.
None of that indicates the US is pro-freedom.
The whole point of certificates and SSL is to protect communications between the browser and the web server. It's not "to protect communications from everyone except the government". It's to protect it from EVERYONE - including (and sometimes especially) the government.
And your hobby horse is clear enough too.
What you call "wealth confiscation" is known to the rest of the world as "taxes". We can argue about the merits of particular taxes or the appropriate level of taxation. However most people understand that taxes are the price of civilization in the modern world.
There is nothing civilised about compelling people to hand over the fruits of their labour using a threat of force.
You would presumably have us return to world of Babylon and Sumer. Well that ship has sailed and no one is listening to your propaganda.
I would have us live in a society that has systems in place to protect each other from harm. You may not define theft as harm - I do.
The US government shouldn't be using wealth it confiscates from its citizens for things like this.
If you want space exploration to be funded, then get your checkbook out. Convince others to do the same. But don't expect people who do not want to (or cannot afford to) to fund your hobby horse.
Not a waste, just inappropriately funded.
Why is this moderated as a Troll? Though the poster is anonymous, they are spot on.
If you think this research is worthwhile, then you wouldn't mind paying for it yourself.
If you don't think this research is worthwhile then why should you be forced to pay for it?
However it is funded it should not be via compulsory wealth confiscation.
The first duty of a revolutionary is to get away with it. -- Abbie Hoffman