If I were in George's position I also wouldn't have helped. Most likely my limited income is earmarked for personal use.
Of course I do pay for a lot of things that I don't like. I'm against most welfare programs because they are too easily abused. I do believe there is a place for them, but perhaps that place is private charity and not government. If you truly care about helping others, you could simply find a charity that meets your needs and donate to them. This way, you aren't taxing people who disagree with the use of that portion of their tax money and you have given to a charity that you believe in.
I don't mind paying NASA, our soldiers pay, or infrastructure out of my taxes. However, perhaps others do mind. Should our tax system be a voluntary system? Should we be able to pick and choose where our taxes go? It sounds great in theory, but would it work?
I know I would pay into my local infrastructure, I would give money to NASA, and I would give to our soldiers. But then, how much do I pay? Also, how am I sure that the pay goes to the soldiers and not to stockpiling weapons or building up the infrastructure of a foreign nation? Both things I am generally against.
As I extrapolate that thought to everyone it seems that our tax system would become p...
Of course I do pay for a lot of things that I don't like. I'm against most welfare programs because they are too easily abused. I do believe there is a place for them, but perhaps that place is private charity and not government. If you truly care about helping others, you could simply find a charity that meets your needs and donate to them. This way, you aren't taxing people who disagree with the use of that portion of their tax money and you have given to a charity that you believe in.
I don't mind paying NASA, our soldiers pay, or infrastructure out of my taxes. However, perhaps others do mind. Should our tax system be a voluntary system? Should we be able to pick and choose where our taxes go? It sounds great in theory, but would it work?
I know I would pay into my local infrastructure, I would give money to NASA, and I would give to our soldiers. But then, how much do I pay? Also, how am I sure that the pay goes to the soldiers and not to stockpiling weapons or building up the infrastructure of a foreign nation? Both things I am generally against.
As I extrapolate that thought to everyone it seems that our tax system would become p...
If I were in George's position I also wouldn't have helped. Most likely my limited income is earmarked for personal use.
Of course I do pay for a lot of things that I don't like. I'm against most welfare programs because they are too easily abused. I do believe there is a place for them, but perhaps that place is private charity and not government. If you truly care about helping others, you could simply find a charity that meets your needs and donate to them. This way, you aren't taxing people who disagree with the use of that portion of their tax money and you have given to a charity that you believe in.
I don't mind paying NASA, our soldiers pay, or infrastructure out of my taxes. However, perhaps others do mind. Should our tax system be a voluntary system? Should we be able to pick and choose where our taxes go? It sounds great in theory, but would it work?
I know I would pay into my local infrastructure, I would give money to NASA, and I would give to our soldiers. But then, how much do I pay? Also, how am I sure that the pay goes to the soldiers and not to stockpiling weapons or building up the infrastructure of a foreign nation? Both things I am generally against.
As I extrapolate that thought to everyone it seems that our tax system would become purely democratic in a sense. If everyone only paid into what they thought was a good use of their taxes, then only the things that were generally popular with the population would get any funding.
I know this is a bit off topic. It got me to thinking, and I just decided to think 'outloud'.
(more)Of course I do pay for a lot of things that I don't like. I'm against most welfare programs because they are too easily abused. I do believe there is a place for them, but perhaps that place is private charity and not government. If you truly care about helping others, you could simply find a charity that meets your needs and donate to them. This way, you aren't taxing people who disagree with the use of that portion of their tax money and you have given to a charity that you believe in.
I don't mind paying NASA, our soldiers pay, or infrastructure out of my taxes. However, perhaps others do mind. Should our tax system be a voluntary system? Should we be able to pick and choose where our taxes go? It sounds great in theory, but would it work?
I know I would pay into my local infrastructure, I would give money to NASA, and I would give to our soldiers. But then, how much do I pay? Also, how am I sure that the pay goes to the soldiers and not to stockpiling weapons or building up the infrastructure of a foreign nation? Both things I am generally against.
As I extrapolate that thought to everyone it seems that our tax system would become purely democratic in a sense. If everyone only paid into what they thought was a good use of their taxes, then only the things that were generally popular with the population would get any funding.
I know this is a bit off topic. It got me to thinking, and I just decided to think 'outloud'.
Of course I do pay for a lot of things that I don't like. I'm against most welfare programs because they are too easily abused. I do believe there is a place for them, but perhaps that place is private charity and not government. If you truly care about helping others, you could simply find a charity that meets your needs and donate to them. This way, you aren't taxing people who disagree with the use of that portion of their tax money and you have given to a charity that you believe in.
I don't mind paying NASA, our soldiers pay, or infrastructure out of my taxes. However, perhaps others do mind. Should our tax system be a voluntary system? Should we be able to pick and choose where our taxes go? It sounds great in theory, but would it work?
I know I would pay into my local infrastructure, I would give money to NASA, and I would give to our soldiers. But then, how much do I pay? Also, how am I sure that the pay goes to the soldiers and not to stockpiling weapons or building up the infrastructure of a foreign nation? Both things I am generally against.
As I extrapolate that thought to everyone it seems that our tax system would become p...
Of course I do pay for a lot of things that I don't like. I'm against most welfare programs because they are too easily abused. I do believe there is a place for them, but perhaps that place is private charity and not government. If you truly care about helping others, you could simply find a charity that meets your needs and donate to them. This way, you aren't taxing people who disagree with the use of that portion of their tax money and you have given to a charity that you believe in.
I don't mind paying NASA, our soldiers pay, or infrastructure out of my taxes. However, perhaps others do mind. Should our tax system be a voluntary system? Should we be able to pick and choose where our taxes go? It sounds great in theory, but would it work?
I know I would pay into my local infrastructure, I would give money to NASA, and I would give to our soldiers. But then, how much do I pay? Also, how am I sure that the pay goes to the soldiers and not to stockpiling weapons or building up the infrastructure of a foreign nation? Both things I am generally against.
As I extrapolate that thought to everyone it seems that our tax system would become purely democratic in a sense. If everyone only paid into what they thought was a good use of their taxes, then only the things that were generally popular with the population would get any funding.
I know this is a bit off topic. It got me to thinking, and I just decided to think 'outloud'.
What if, instead of needing college tuition for his kids, Oliver needed food for his children to eat, so that they didn't starve? You dig deep and give Oliver $20; which is the top amount you can spare without cutting into your and your own kids' weekly food money, but George, who you know has far more money than you and no kids to support, just says, “Let'm starve. I don't care.” George, in fact, has no money worries whatsoever. The economic system has been good to him, because he inherited his wealth.
In our scenario, just like in the original one, there are no further variables by which we can morally mitigate this: If George doesn't pay a small pittance from his great abundance, despite your own help which might feed them for the day but certainly not for the month, two children will absolutely starve. Is it a moral act to physically beat George if necessary to steal his money and save the two children's lives?
I personally wonder if, when we push libertarianism to the extreme, we are not guilty of something like an equivocation fallacy. That is to say, these moral scenarios il...
What if, instead of needing college tuition for his kids, Oliver needed food for his children to eat, so that they didn't starve? You dig deep and give Oliver $20; which is the top amount you can spare without cutting into your and your own kids' weekly food money, but George, who you know has far more money than you and no kids to support, just says, “Let'm starve. I don't care.” George, in fact, has no money worries whatsoever. The economic system has been good to him, because he inherited his wealth.
In our scenario, just like in the original one, there are no further variables by which we can morally mitigate this: If George doesn't pay a small pittance from his great abundance, despite your own help which might feed them for the day but certainly not for the month, two children will absolutely starve. Is it a moral act to physically beat George if necessary to steal his money and save the two children's lives?
I personally wonder if, when we push libertarianism to the extreme, we are not guilty of something like an equivocation fallacy. That is to say, these moral scenarios illustrating coercion seem all to be based on the presumption that everyone is already 'a-okay', and/or is on a level playing field, and that everybody earns their wealth in the same manner. The reality seems, however, to be that if we began a purely voluntaryist society tomorrow, the 1% or 3% – the rich industrialist or banker class (the inheritors of most of the wealth and most of the machinery of the previous system) – would have such a huge advantage over the 99% or 97% that the latter would be more, not less, beholden to their will, and less, not more, freedom would be had.
Am I wrong in thinking this? (I'm just playing Devil's Advocate.)
I definitely believe Voluntaryism should be a gradual, long-term transition and not something we do overnight...especially for the simple reason that people just aren't evolved enough to handle it yet. If the state vanished overnight, the sheeple would rush to either elect or install some new goon, out of a sense of fear.
Perhaps even more ironic is that this would be communism (as defined by Marx as the ultimate goal of society; the 'withering away of the state'), a societal arrangement which to date is and has been, in its unperfected state, the complete antithesis of what you and I are talking about.
(Do all roads lead to Voluntaryism then? I wonder.)