I am somewhat entertained by Standby and Frd’s efforts (in other threads) to play “gotcha” regarding the issues of fundamental common rights vs legislated entitlements, and the de facto nature of government to act as a coercive force, and thus it’s taxes and unilateral assessments against wealth and income being a de facto act of theft – and my positions in defense of actions being taken in the present global war against groups pressing a violent agenda of Islamist jihadic fascist totalitarianism, and how that gets paid for.
http://forums.wausaudailyherald.com/viewtopic.php?t=4691
http://forums.wausaudailyherald.com/viewtopic.php?t=4574&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
http://forums.wausaudailyherald.com/viewtopic.php?t=4691
I’m not sure how old either of them are, but that sort of juvenile baiting goes back to the fifth grade. If either has a reasoned counterpoint or personal position to state, then by all means put it out there for everyone’s consideration.
To be sure, neither Frd nor Standby seem to advocate anything other than headlong expansion of a “tax and spend” society, although their predilections seem to favor healthcare and socialized “safety nets” rather than police, military forces, and border enforcement – even though the latter is a charter function of the government we have, while the former is not.
The libertarian ideal is not anarchy. Governments do exist for a reason, which is that they are marginally useful in securing and defending the common rights of individuals – but that should not blind anyone to their characteristic nature, which is the coercive use of force to constrain liberty, albeit may be in the defense of rights.
That marginal necessity should by no means be accepted as a reason or justification for the unbridled expansion of government’s role, or its reach, into all or other areas of life.
Nothing in this life may be certain except Death and Taxes (B. Franklin), but generally we seek to defer the first, and we should seek to minimize and reduce the second, at every opportunity.
It would seem that, if each man (or woman) is sovereign, responsible, and controls him or her self with regards to the rights and the property of himself and others (as the libertarian ideal contends), and is in fact basically good – then no government (or taxes) should be necessary at all.
Clearly we often see that this is not the case. People are the same all over – good, bad, and variously indifferent – however although men (and women) are individually sovereign, responsible, and in control of themselves and their actions as individuals, they have certainly demonstrated their ability to do evil things to other people, and even to do them with evil intent.
It is these actions, which interfere and infringe on the common rights possessed by all individuals, that men (and women) may justifiably come together to act collectively in self-defense of their proper rights, if necessary by constraining the liberty of the offending individual who is acting to infringe upon them.
The nature of man is intrinsically neither good nor bad. If he were good, we would not need government at all – and if he were basically evil, we would be ill advised to put such men in charge of any government.
Suffice it to say that men and women are fundamentally opportunistic. Each will seek good things (profit) for him or her self, in the context of their life and individual circumstances.
Whether individual men and women will adopt or advocate means and methods that are in harmony with the good that they seek and with the common rights of their fellow men and women, will depend on the type of education of the individual, the opportunities available, the circumstances, and their ethical and moral convictions.
To be sure, very few men and women advocate or encourage increased governmental control or taxation of THEMSELVES. They do tend to believe, however that OTHERS must be controlled, that OTHERS (the “rich”) must be taxed, or that OTHERS are unable to make decisions and take actions that will be in their own best interests.
The more that the latter view is believed, the more government control and taxation is advocated.
More directly to the point that Standby and Frd have salivated over: it is not a matter of HOW continued military actions in Iraq and elsewhere will be paid for. They already ARE being paid for – through the very mechanism they advocate and support.
As a percentage of current federal spending, Afghanistan AND Iraq together are at about 7%. Total current spending for the military (including A & I) is about 30%. Service on the debt is 9%. General government operations are about 17%. The remainder, or a whopping 44% (and growing) is social and welfare (“gimme”) programs.
Expenditures in all of these areas should unquestionably be reduced, and some eliminated entirely, and as quickly as possible – and the public thirst for tax dollars dramatically reduced in every area.
The greatest (and only) “reduction in government” that occurred under Clinton in the 1990’s was the shrinking and de-funding of military infrastructure, made possible by the collapse of the Soviet “socialist workers paradise” and diminished military threat in the late 1980’s.
I believe in a strong and vigorous defense. I believe that the threat by the totalitarian Islamist jihadists to the principles of freedom and liberty is significant and real, and I don’t believe that it is adequate or wise to simply wait at home station with minutemen reservists and mock rifles for the threat to come to us (again).
Is that a contradiction? Perhaps. You can hold me to it if you wish. It doesn’t change the nature of things, or the need to stay aware of what taxation is at its foundation.
I’m not going to horse-trade with you, and “give you healthcare if you give me Iraq”, and say that the nature of taxes are in any way sanctified because of the necessity, need, or nobility of either cause.
If immediately withdrawing troops from every place in the world where they are now stationed or deployed would instantly “solve” the problems we face, I’d join you in saying “do it” – and beat those swords, tanks, and planes into plowshares. But it won’t. It’s going to take awhile.
Military action, however, is only one small part of that puzzle. No one is depending on it to provide the entire solution. In the long term, private individual (and group) action will produce far more peace than any military force.
For now, however, they do need someone to provide cover for them while they go about doing it, and to provide a working example of a humane and well-diciplined military force in action (something they have never had good examples of in that region, where vicious brutality is the order of the day.)
Healthcare in the US, on the other hand, already HAS a highly successful, largely libertarian, free-market driven, private-property model fully in place – it doesn’t NEED to be replaced by a government-run, tax-financed system.
To do so will simply be to kill the golden goose, or in the very least, hasten its untimely demise.
John Maynard Keynes and Albert Gore today have a lot in common – sloppy thinking, poor writing, bad science, and a popular public acclaim that surpasses all reason.
http://forums.wausaudailyherald.com/viewtopic.php?p=7923&highlight=#7923
