ZOMBIE FORUMS

From the April 10, 2001 New York Times. Obviously slightly out-of-date, but still roughly indicative of how much the government spends on what.





...so if we really want to reduce government spending, why not start with the single thing that's wasting the most money?



But you are advocating anarchy, albeit of a Republican capitalist variety. And it does demand impossible feats of morality, like simply wanting to give one's hard-earned money to the federal government without compulsion. "From each according to his ability," I guess. The government cannot operate the same way a charity does, because no charity is powerful enough to prevent total anarchy.

As for basing it on subscription instead: You just said, people who don't want to pay for the subscription can be free of the government's control. This basically means that most people below the poverty line would not be under government control, since they couldn't afford it. The upper classes, on the other hand, wouldn't waste their money on it either, since they could pretty much hire their own goons to defend themselves against their enemies, without having to worry about those silly "laws" that are entailed by subscribing to Government Protection, Inc. The middle class might subscribe, but it wouldn't do much good when the lower and upper classes are beyond the government's control.

As for your comment about how much money the government steals from us - once again, I'll reiterate that, without the government, i.e. with total anarchy, then pretty much whoever the hell is strong enough to can do the same thing.

See, the problem is, everyone has the ability to use force, and the only way to keep them from just using force to get whenever they want is to create an organization that possesses so much force that everyone is afraid of disobeying it, and then making that force accountable to the people.

Its funny how only people who've been able to live safe, secure lives and grow fat from the security others provide advocate the limiting of that security.

I find it funny that when a Mob boss walks into someone's home, tells them that unless they pay the mob for "Insurance", bad things could happen to them, the government arrests them and charges them with racqueteering. When the government tells people to pay up for a police force, otherwise bad things could happen, it's called business as usual.

Also, Icy, your numbers show Defense at 52%, Health Human services (Welfare) at 10%. Far from twenty times difference.



Please prove that the defense of this country is, in fact, a waste.

You morphed his question. He said that national defense is the most wasteful in its use of funds, not that defense is unnecessary as a whole.

Okay, then prove that funding defense wastes more money than funding welfare.

Not my job, Icy made the statement.

Though, I believe his point though was that all government programs waste money about equally. So, unless Defense is remarkably efficient and keen in their expenditures, they waste the most money. Catch the drift?

Oh, okay. That makes sense. No common good.


By the logic that tariffs, etc. are taxes. I dunno; it's mighty strong logic in a realistic sense. Anyone find an example of a tax-less government in history?


Don't be a smacktard. Yes, you are. Requiring law enforcement to charge for its services is infeasible, currently.

Honestly, Mibbers, address the question.

As an example:
I think that the income tax (even progressive as it is) is a-okay because it taxes in proportion to how much people can take. If we're going for some sort of common good (which sort of seems to be the aim of the social contract and having a government), and are in any sense the least bit altruistic (which most, if not all, are), then it would seem to be logical to have something that causes the least suffering, you know?

I mean, if we were all purely self-interested, your capitalist utopia might be a good idea for the upper/middle-class, but we aren't all purely that way, are we? Thus, an income tax.

For the military thingie example:
Military defence is obviously needed in some degree, and expensive. The cost of supporting associated industries at home (to prevent dependence on outside sources), in addition to paying them for the services they provide and everything else involved in maintaining the military, is large, but required, most seem to agree.

I do not see how the defence budget could support itself.

Incidentally: that nice little amendment about the income tax seems to have actually helped America gain power, thus allowing prosperity to come to said nation, which "trickles down" back to those who were taxed in the first place.

Yeah, that was directed at Icy. I agree that since he made the statement he has to back it up. And if all programs waste money equally, shouldn't we remove money from programs equally?

Eventually. However we have to assume that budgeting for each program is done individually. SO to work on them all at once would be very time consuming and inefficient. It is more appropriate, assuming you are in need of funds in a timely fashion, to start with the largest expenditure and streamline that before moving on to the next largest and so on until all departments have been 'streamlined'.

Well.... yes. But I like being able to own property.

I'm sure you could find truly taxless governments on a local scale, but most of the services that we expect from governments call for money, which means either the government reserves for itself - and develops, in competition with the private economy - a certain large portion of the national resources from the outset, or it taxes the populace.

I can't offhand think of any government that has done the former option exclusively, and I don't think we could make that transition without devastating our current economy.

Of course, this all really comes down to what you want the world to be like. MiB apparantly (and sorry if I've gotthis wrong, its just my impression) takes a very capitalist view of the whole thing- what you earn, is yours, what you own is your own. Which is a very nice principle to take, but not universal. For one thing, those upper rih ten percent would not have made all their money, if the goverment had not sustained and molded the environment which allowed them to do so. Their fortunes would not exist except on the backs of the poor, the poor who MiB, presumably, would leave to starve when their CEO makes them redundant to pay for his new Yacht: of course it's his money, and he should be free to spend it on hookers and smack while people are lying in the gutter starving to death.
And that's his worldview and I respect that, what I don't respect is his forcing upon us of this worldview, telling us that this is right and if we disagree with itwe are amoral because I am here to tell you now that other people have different views on what is right and wrong and I for one find your "morality" to be highly selfish and inhuman.
Because I have a very different worldview, I don't care whether you earned that fortune or not, I don't care about your views on welfare or Aids or the developing world. All I care about is that people are dying and living in sub-human conditions, and I don't have the resources to help them and you do and so help me I'm gonna force you to do it whether you want to or not. Because I think their lives matter more than your principles and your selfish desires. At least, thats what I'd do if I was in charge and "you" were a rich oil baron or such-and-such, and its probably better that I'm not. But someone, somewhere along the line agreed somewhat with this and so we have taxes and welfare, and because of that most of the people in our countries won't die of malnutrition or exposure and you know what, I like that, suprising as that may be to you.
Now, that's my morality, my take on what's right and what's not and I don't expect you to agree with it, or accept it, in fact I'd be rather sad if you did, since I think we need people like you to make the world turn (but I think we need people like me to make sure no one gets crushed as it does). What I would like, however, is for you to accept that I do believe that and have as much right to do so as you do to view the world your way. So before you go spewing your mouth off labelling things moral and immoral just remember you don't have sole use of those terms and you are not the worlds judge. Learn to distinguish your own opinion from fact, and stop insulting people, and you might learn something, and teach someone else something too.

no no no, you see, I am right, it is you who are wrong

sir, it is your move

Hey, its bad for me to force my worldview on you, but its okay for you to hold a gun to my face and say "pay up, people are dying."

Yeah, keeping whats mine is so immoral, robbery is a much better alternative.

Edit: as a side note, doesn't your criticia of "forcing" beliefs onto other people being bad negate your own beliefs, which are far more invasive than my own?

-MiB

I'm not entirely comfortable with my worldview, it's frankly a mess and very unprincipled. I'm not here to argue its case, especially- the one I presented was an extreme, altered version of my actual beliefs (in fact it was more an attempt at an opposite to your own- for examples purposes), the point I was really trying to get across is that "morality" is subjective, I'm not saying I think there's anything wrong with your arguments or your actions, it's just a little nitpick- probably not worth mentioning but I'm quite pedantic. More importantly, sorry, I looked back over the conversation and I realised I misread it, what you were saying was actually in line with this. Sorry I'll try and be more careful in future.
It all basically came out of this quote:


Which I've just found, and I think is a very well reasoned and sensible argument, unfortunately I only saw the first part of this and then thought MiB was saying that the taking of wealth by force is objectively immoral, which prompted my response. Of course, I now realise that was not what he was saying, I am very sorry for this mistake, which occured due to the lateness of the hour, too much caffiene and a healthy dose of stupidity on my part, I hope we can put this behind us but as I was quite unreasonable I recognise this may not be so, I will attempt to be more careful in future.



I believe my point was, its not immoral, its merely something I don't agree with (sorry if you were you being ironic). I thought this was clear when I wrote it but as I was referencing my (false) interpretation of your former comment I realise this was not so. As to the actual argument, I do think you have got the moral highground, and robbing you is not a good alternative, but if I have to take the choice between robbing you and letting someone die, I'll take robbing you every time. Which I must admit is a highly unsatisfactory way to run things.

As an aside:
For those interested, the system of goverment MiB was suggesting suggested anarcho-capitalism to me, although considerably closer to capitalism (in that it still proposed a form of goverment, but relegated it to the position to which anarcho capitalism typically relegates the elements of goverment) but since I have little knowledge of the system and none of libertarianism I'll try not to put words in his mouth. Regardless of whether he meant it or not, its a rather interesting idea (not to mention a practical alternative to the more extreme forms of anarchism) that I'd suggest people check out, as I'm doing now (although i doubt it will cause me to discard my current quasi-utilitarian beliefs, it's good to keep an open mind). If it is what he meant, I'm sure he can explain it much better than I, but a quick google search brings up here here , here and here as possible resources. Cyberpunk fans may wish to check out the "The Star Fraction" which I'm ashamed to admit was untill this conversation re-sparked my interest was the sum of my knowledge I bring it up because it seems most similar to MiB's proposal (although I don't mean to trivialise this established and respectable philosophy by quoting a science-fiction story as a major source, the book I guess is more personal to me than in any way notable)

Sorry, what I was trying to say there was, neither of us are right. That probably came out wrong, as you noted before my writing is poor.

I don't think you needed to tell us that, it was pretty clear from the get-go.



Lord forbid, in a debate area, you defend your view.



Example of...what...?



No, it is not subjective. My morality is right: your's is wrong.

See? Everyone wins.



It is objectively immoral.



Yes, not agreeing with a moral standpoint usually means its immoral in your eyes or neutral.

Subjective morality is amorality, thus I win either way anyway, so...

point?

-MiB

A view different to your own.



Please explain how it is objectively immoral.

If it's going to come down to an arguement about morality, rather than the morality of charity, taxes, or collective comunity, I say skip it over to a new thread. I think it'd make one hell of a debate.

-Kitty

BTW, kid, you're not gonna have MiB back down, period, but keep swinging.

No, Ryan, people have had me back down on plenty of issues, actually.

You just lack teh argue-fu, apparently.

-MiB

...I call bluff on you MiB, I DEMAND proof