Quote from magickware99 »I had a random thought a couple of days ago and I want to see how flawed it is.
Lots of people complain about how their tax money is spent on things that they don't want, and so government doesn't represent them.
So, what if instead of having tax money sent to the treasury and then the government dividing it as they see fit, have the people denote where their tax money will go to.
Suppose 100% is the amount of tax I have to pay. Have 10% or so of it go as it normally does. The remaining 90% I can choose which department(s) it goes to.
What I find amusing is that people here are arguing how dumb your idea is without even knowing what it is.
Your idea is at ambiguous. You haven't fleshed out any details. But I don't see anything wrong with it in broad theoretical terms if it is executed out differently. In fact, I had this idea myself independently.
First of all, I might change your numbers drastically. For example. Citizens continue to pay 95% taxes, while 1-5% may be directed towards causes of one's choosing. The state therefore retains overwhelming control over tax dollars (95%) allowing for continued allocation to critical areas. Meanwhile the small amount of allocative freedom given to individuals to pick the departments of their choices may actually increase civic participation, and hopefully produce a more vigilant and informed citizenry on the issue of wasteful tax spending. (the precise numbers might be changed as necessary)
Secondly, the tax allocation MUST be made to somewhere. One cannot keep the 5% for themselves or direct it towards personal causes.
The decisions would be something like allocating money to NASA v allocating them to the department of homeland security.
Thirdly, to make the allocation meaningful, the state should allocate and fund the various departments of the government under the assumption that no agency will receive any of these citizen chosen funds.
Fourthly, departments would be encouraged to "advertise" to the citizenry by means of informing citizens of their functions, and what they would do with the money, which would hopefully encourage transparency.
Fifthly, citizens who do not elect any government agencies for their 5% simply have their 5% chosen allocation, allocated in the same proportions as the standing federal budgetary allocation.
In this regime, I see potentially positive outcomes that increase civic participation, bring a spotlight to wasteful government spending, and increase the transparency of executive agencies without impairing the state's ability to function.
1
I believe we have a natural right to self-defense. Because of that right, we have a right to close the gap in the disparity of arms between ourselves, and those who would attack us. The constitution doesn't give us this right. We have the right, and we told the government, by way of constitutional amendment, that they couldn't violate it (which they have a little bit here and there).
However,
I don't appreciate idiots walking around a Jack in the Box with AR-15's. Acting like the FEMA camp roundup in the next Nazi takeover is going to happen while they eat their ultimate bacon.
A CCW is plenty appropriate for your trip to buy a cheeseburger, and it's also a tactical disadvantage to give away your defense capabilities.
Leave the AR/AK at home in the safe, and stop making us look exactly as they are trying to portray us.
Now, I wouldn't go and outlaw it, but I reserve the right to laugh at those Fast Food Rambo's.
2
I am a strong supporter of equal rights, equal protection, and the LGBT community. I voted for equal marriage in Oregon, among other things.
However, I'm not buying civil rights at the drive-thru. I'm buying a chicken sandwich.
I want the tastiest, well made, and cost conscious chicken sandwich I can get in 3
minutes because I'm hungry.
I don't care if the guy I'm buying it from is an anti-gun, homophobic, socialist, young earth creationist. Everything I stand against, I'm buying a chicken sandwich.
This is reverse discrimination. This is thought crime.
Is this boycott going to follow the CEO to his next job?
If not, why not, isn't he a "bad guy"?
If so, aren't we basically saying "if you don't think the way we want you to think, you don't deserve to have a job"?
Where is the philosophical integrity? You're boycotting Mozilla because the CEO doesn't support gay marriage. What about the next fifteen major consumer product corporations? Is it just CEO's? What about middle management, what about the janitor?
You going to boycott every business that employs someone you disagree with?
Good luck living off the grid.
1
I'm riding my bike one day, and I'm waiting to cross a street with a turn lane, but no cross walks.
This lady in a car in the turn lane sees me and waves me to cross (traffic was otherwise clear) so it
was a nice thing for her to do.
I ride across the street, and it's like I hit an invisible wall, I just completely wipe out, head over
handlebars and all. I get up and see the lady just looking at me, it was a /facepalm written all over her face.
Literally, there was nothing there. To this day I don't know what I hit, but it was the equivalent of tripping
on your own feet.
Grab a friend or two and go for a hike, ride, or drive, get outside, go camping.
1
By a mother, who tolerates the abuse and sexual depredation heaped upon her by her child's father right before their eyes, saying "this is what love looks like".
By a father who uses violence and sexual abuse towards the mother of his child right before their eyes, saying "see, this is how you treat women".
By a society that sells everything they possibly can on the backs of half-naked women (and men).
No one is born a rapist.
Instead of teaching men not to rape, we need to stop teaching people to rape.
1
Yeah, I listen to Freedomainradio and Stefan quite often.
On the surface, I should say "OMG Stefan is right, I should be an Anarchist!"
There's just problems he fails to recognize.
Who settles a disagreement in Stefan's world?
How do I argue that someone violated my property rights, or levied aggression against me? Who do I argue these violations to? To whom do I prove that the property was mine, or that I was only defending myself? To whom do I prove that the contract was violated, and by the other? Is there a court? Is there a sheriff?
Do I settle it myself? With what authority?
Who is going to "ostracize the guilty"?
Who is going to enforce their removal from the society, or it's market?
Do we stand before the town council? With what authority do they rule the action violated my property rights, or the NAP.
Where are the "rules" written?
Stefan should know, the rules are NOT written on the hearts of men.
Somewhere you need a paper, or something, or someone saying
1. Thou shalt respect property rights.
2. Thou shalt not violate the NAP.
3. Break either of these rules, and we'll ostracize you.
Then at some point, you need The Law to have teeth.
1
What, do you want an applause for being unwilling to stand up for your position when it comes under scrutiny?
Looks like we'll have to wait for you to man up.
1
You know, this one
Excuses excuses.
You "probably" just want to avoid actually defending your naive and asinine position from scrutiny.
1
Thankfully, being gay isn't a crime anymore (though the stigma...)
If they can swallow their integrity and vote against their own interests...well isn't that just politics?
1
Begging from others may be unwanted solicitation. It can also cause undue emotional distress, since you are making other people feel sorry for you. You are using guilt against them, and using your position of poverty to pose a moral dilemma upon them that if you were not begging that person for help, they may not otherwise face.
You are counting on the persons goodness to coerce them into giving you something, otherwise they have to turn you away, resulting in that person feeling bad about themselves.
So to avoid feeling bad about themselves, they cough it up.
This is manipulative on the part of the beggar.
1
Giving someone a check every month doesn't make them employable, intelligent, ambitious, responsible, or give them strong work ethic, morals, valuable skills, etc.
Giving people money solves only one problem - being broke.
It's up to the person getting the money to solve their other problems. To look for work, get an education, find a personal goal to strive for, be sober, be desirable to employers, gain interview skills, and trade skills to go with it...
Now, many people who fall on hard times and get government assistance DO have those qualities and eventually get off assistance.
But to ignore that hundreds of thousands of people DON'T and just grow accustomed to sucking the governments tit...that's just blind naivety.
Welfare has never solved poverty, and never will. I'd argue all it has done is institutionalize living in poverty.