Quote:
Originally Posted by Dexter Morgan
All money would be taxed once (say, a sales tax - no, I don't mean FairTax), and negligibly - so as to cover a scaled-back military meant for home defense only and infrastructure costs for things such as roads, a police force, etc.
|
Taxed negligibly? What does that mean? So does this mean the poor can get away with paying an even lower proportion of overall taxes?
Quote:
|
Everything else - home ownership, business start-up, health insurance - is privatized.
|
Do you also mean libraries, support services (such as abuse and addiction services), K-12 education, unemployment insurance, career support services, etc.? This would all be privatized? That sounds like a recipe for plutocracy to me (i.e. the poor would not have access to much, if any, of these things).
Quote:
|
What you're proposing in supporting the current system isn't people helping other people - it's channeling money through an intermediary and expecting them to do it for you.
|
There isn't anything fundamentally wrong with that. I'd prefer the government do these things for us. It's a good role for it to play. That's why many of us vote certain groups into power. (And that's where you and I differ, apparently.)
Quote:
|
If you care so goddamn much, go give your time to helping the needy. Donate directly out of your pocket and decide how much you want to give and where you want it to go.
|
I cannot afford to do that on the scale I think it should be done. That's why I support the current system.
Quote:
|
Just stop expecting me and others to happily do the same with absolutely no say in our money's use.
|
I don't expect you to be happy about it, or anyone. It's not so much about you as it is about the greater benefit to society--you know, other people.
Quote:
|
I don't not care about the needy, nor do most Libertarians; we simply don't usher all the needy under such a broad umbrella, and we observe a very striking difference between truly helping people and keeping them dependent by never requiring them to learn anything. Sometimes, the kind of "help" others think is so important is exactly what keeps people weak, dependent and entitled.
|
It's too bad you don't care about the needy, because many of them are directly responsible for the generation of the wealth that you likely enjoy. I don't quite know what you mean by "keeping dependent." I cannot think of a widespread program that aims to keep people dependent on anything. Several programs (some of which I've mentioned above) aim to do the opposite. No one wants people to be dependent; we want them to be empowered and successful. This is why I support many social programs you want dismantled.
I don't understand your reasoning. Can you clarify this a bit further please?