Not Yours to Give

[kandrathe]

One of the people working for me had a homework assignment to read the following.

Not Yours To Give

It seemed to harmonize with my notion of the appropriate role of government, and my revulsion of the socialist trend to extort "compassion" by the legal sword of ever increasing taxation. I feel people need to be free to express their compassion towards each other, but not be compelled by force to fund "good causes" however noble they may be. I have no problem with our leaders using their bully pulpits to drum up support for good causes, as long as their funding is voluntary. For example, our local paper today had an extensive article on public grant funding to give to school districts to encourage their kids to walk or ride their bikes to school. This after two decades of raising taxes to get them all on buses, and media's weekly horror messages of child abductions and murders. We are also in our state considering things like paying children to go to school and pass their tests. I want my government to guard my borders, and perhaps do things that benefit all citizens equally.

Anyway, as Eppie has lamented, the Lounge has languished a dry spell without good political discussion material. I thought this might be a worthy topic, and I've recently repaired my flame retardant suit.

[SwissMercenary]

Ridicilous, as is any extreme. Why have a police force, if people should be expected to be wholly responsible in keeping 'their own house' in order? I am not certain if the police benefit those rich enough to afford their own private army as equally as the rest of us. At least, if the words of certain posters here were taken at face value, some of us are supposed to hate their guts.

No matter what government 'service' that you think is 'necessary' that you name, I'm sure I can point out an example wherein it benefits some people more then others. A check for the fire victims is hardly unique in that respect. Yes, it benefits a much smaller group of people. Yes, you can argue about whether or not that specific bill was appropriate. However, it isn't an excuse to rule out the matter entirely.

As for your bus example, it isn't hard to find examples of tax money getting spent on stupid things. To draw the conclusion that taxes should be nigh-abolished from that would be jumping to extremes.

[Occhidiangela]

Anyway, as Eppie has lamented, the Lounge has languished a dry spell without good political discussion material. I thought this might be a worthy topic, and I've recently repaired my flame retardant suit.

Good political discussion seem to me an oxymoron these days.

Occhi

[eppie]

As for your bus example, it isn't hard to find examples of tax money getting spent on stupid things. To draw the conclusion that taxes should be nigh-abolished from that would be jumping to extremes.

I fully agree. People don't often realize how much they owe to our social system (with a government, taxes etc.).
Letting people chose what to pay for first costs an enormous amount of administrative work, and second will never yield enough funds.

One good thing: I think we we would be rid of all the wining of people that want more and bigger roads.

[Swiss Mercenary]

I'd just want the roads to not be getting smaller, frankly. :rolleyes:

In the "Let's, maybe not build a trolley line down the middle of a 4-lane arterial, reducing it to a 2-lane arterial" way. That's our latest pork project over here. :rolleyes:

Well, except for the part where we get to fork 2/3rds of the ever-growing bill. Money that seems to be going towards building an oversized tourist attraction.

[eppie]

Good political discussion seem to me an oxymoron these days.

Occhi

Yes it is better just to make fun of it.

"Today is Presidents' Day ... where we honor presidents ranging from George Washington, who couldn't tell a lie, to George Bush, who couldn't tell the truth. And Bill Clinton who couldn't tell the difference." --Jay Leno

I love this webpage http://politicalhumor.about.combrary/bldailyfeed3.htm

[ShadowHM]

I'd just want the roads to not be getting smaller, frankly. :rolleyes:

In the "Let's, maybe not build a trolley line down the middle of a 4-lane arterial, reducing it to a 2-lane arterial" way. That's our latest pork project over here. :rolleyes:

*gasps* You live on St. Clair Avenue? Or are you just another of the hapless car-users who wasn't consulted over this 'project'? :P

[Chesspiece_face]

In my state the bumpersticker motto seems to be "freedom isn't free" and yet every year when the bill comes around to improve teacher's pay and improve education opportunities that switches pretty quickly to "f*$% that"

"Freedom isn't free" seems to be a popular notion as long as people can idealize it with the blood of martyrs but when it comes down to funding the structures and systems that support and maintain these freedoms on a day to day basis (just as do the soldiers, patriots, etc.) people turn tail and hide. "freedom isn't free" all too quickly turns to "government is taking my s#$&!"

[Nystul]

The interesting thing is how much power the federal government has assumed in the nearly 2 centuries since that speech (assuming Crockett ever actually made it), and how little of that power is derived from Constitutional amendments. How often do you hear of a law being revoked in the courts on the simple basis that Congress did not have the powers to pass it, or it violates amendment X? The courts are more likely to kill a law by inventing individual rights and pretending they are in the Constitution than by actually limiting the Congress to the powers it has been granted explicitly.

[SwissMercenary]

*gasps* You live on St. Clair Avenue? Or are you just another of the hapless car-users who wasn't consulted over this 'project'? :P

No, and I won't be directly affected by it, seeing as how I take the 97 bus. However, what I fail to see is the sense of it. Take up two lanes so that you can send a trolley down it every once in a while. You know. A trolley. One of those things that travels roughly as fast as cars do. What's the point of riding them again, if a car can get you where you want to go faster?

Possibly because their plan seems to consist of making transit faster then traffic, by slowing traffic down to a crawl. That'll surely reduce those greenhouse gas emissions!

The inanity of this boggles my mind. I mean, it's not like there's somebody awarding his buddies the contracts to do it, seeing as how if we'd say, instead of the trolley system, built a new branch of the SkyTrain, the exact same companies would be in on it. Hell, the bill would probably come out to be more. But at least after spending over a billion dollars, we'd have something that has a purpose other then make a hell of a lot of noise, and look pretty.

Oh, right, of course. How could I forget. That's exactly the purpose of the Evergreen Line. A fancy tourist attraction, and a cash cow for the coffee shops along it's route. Why everyone, including local municipal councillors, who seem, no, wait, who are reasonable people (And they aren't the type to spend money unless absolutely necessary), are fawning over it is beyond me.

[Taem]

Yes it is better just to make fun of it.

"Today is Presidents' Day ... where we honor presidents ranging from George Washington, who couldn't tell a lie, to George Bush, who couldn't tell the truth. And Bill Clinton who couldn't tell the difference." --Jay Leno

I love this webpage http://politicalhumor.about.combrary/bldailyfeed3.htm

My father came back from Australia and brought back some pictures with him. One of the pictures had a car in the background with a written message in the window stating, "Bush got the ring, Frodo lost!" I found it humorous.

[kandrathe]

I fully agree. People don't often realize how much they owe to our social system (with a government, taxes etc.).
Letting people chose what to pay for first costs an enormous amount of administrative work, and second will never yield enough funds.

One good thing: I think we we would be rid of all the wining of people that want more and bigger roads.

The point that is missed here is that the government is the equivalent of "by the sword". Whatever is enacted by law is forced upon the people. By passing laws to tax people, the government is taking away property by force. For a citizen to not pay taxes is to violate a law which then means that the citizen would face "justice".

The question posed by the article is; "Should the government take peoples money by force to spend on things that are not explicitly written into the Constitution (Charter of Government)?"

And, I would pose a second question; "Should the government take the peoples money by force to spend on things that do not benefit "ALL" the people?"

Taxing all the people in the US to pay for some pork project (e.g. The bridge to nowhere), seems to be a violation of the peoples trust at best, and larceny at worst. We live in a society where the funding good ideas and compassion do not need to be done at the point of a gun. If a good idea is fiscally sound, fine, use the bully pulpit of your government office to drum up private funding and investment in it, but don't force all the people to pay for your boondoggles. If people are homeless, hungry, and in need of compassion, then lead by example and dig deep into your own pocket, then go ask good people to do likewise, but don't reach into the next persons pocket and then claim a moral victory.

[kandrathe]

Ridicilous, as is any extreme. Why have a police force, if people should be expected to be wholly responsible in keeping 'their own house' in order? I am not certain if the police benefit those rich enough to afford their own private army as equally as the rest of us. At least, if the words of certain posters here were taken at face value, some of us are supposed to hate their guts.

No matter what government 'service' that you think is 'necessary' that you name, I'm sure I can point out an example wherein it benefits some people more then others. A check for the fire victims is hardly unique in that respect. Yes, it benefits a much smaller group of people. Yes, you can argue about whether or not that specific bill was appropriate. However, it isn't an excuse to rule out the matter entirely.

As for your bus example, it isn't hard to find examples of tax money getting spent on stupid things. To draw the conclusion that taxes should be nigh-abolished from that would be jumping to extremes.

I'm thinking local for a minute, because the scale is more appropriate. I need roads, police, firefighters, sewer, water, and the public school to be funded by my local government. These need to be modest and adequate, not lavish and extreme. The tendency is for spending to be lavish and extreme when it comes to taking away the money from taxpayers. Your trolley example is perfect, though, because the money was taken from people to build it, and will continue to be taken every year to maintain it. If it was a good idea and fiscally sound, then the government would not have had to build it.

I think the trend scales exponentially when it gets to the State and Federal level, as the projects tend to be more of a drop in the bucket. We are at the place though where the boondoggle drops have accumulated to be nearly a full bucket and people point at the needed services for reductions.

Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding the founding of my State, "In 1855 a group of St. Paul businessmen became interested in promoting the town formed the Saint Peter Company, the town was renamed St. Peter. The president of the Company was Willis A. Gorman, Territorial Governor of Minnesota. In 1857 an attempt was made to move the capital from St. Paul to St. Peter. Gov. Gorman owned the land on which the bill's sponsors wanted to build the new capitol building, and at one point had been heard saying, "If the capitol remains in Saint Paul, the territory is worth millions and I have nothing." At the time, St. Peter - a city in the central region of the territory - was seen as more accessible to the far-flung territorial legislators than St. Paul, which was in the extreme eastern portion of the territory, on the east bank of the Mississippi River. A bill was passed in both houses of the Territorial Legislature and was awaiting Governor Gorman's signature. A member of the Territorial Council (Senate) Joseph J. Rolette of Pembina (now in North Dakota), the son of a Canadian fur trapper and chairman of the enrollment committee, took the bill and hid in a St. Paul Hotel, drinking and playing cards with some friends as the City Police looked fruitlessly for him, until the end of the legislative session, too late for the bill to be signed. Rolette came into the chamber just as the session ended. One might say that the bill was an attempt to "rob Paul to pay Peter"."

I feel that politics and politicians have not changed. They are not on our side, they are not noble equitable legislators, and hardly represent the people.

[Jester]

I feel that politics and politicians have not changed. They are not on our side, they are not noble equitable legislators, and hardly represent the people.

And yet, there's nothing that says they have to be.

They only have to be the ones you elect.

-Jester

[eppie]

I feel that politics and politicians have not changed. They are not on our side, they are not noble equitable legislators, and hardly represent the people.

I am not so negative. I think a lot of politicians are on our side and want to do an as good as they can job. The problem is that people tend to vote for the few that as you say are not on our side.

There are so many examples: Berlusconi in italy just wants to be prime minister so that he cannot be brought to court....but still people vote for him. That he is a multibillionair and owns most of the countries TV station and other media does not seem to bother most people.
Bush is another example, I don' t want to get into another discussion about him,but he is a clear example of not a right person....and he even got voted for twice.
Hitler, maybe the 'best' example of them all was ellected (not completely in a regular way of course but still). We have to live with the fact that 4 out of 5 people around us are complete morons.
Once in a while when I realize this I often wonder why I just didn't became a stock broker and made loads of money, and didn't care about other people....most of them don't deserve it......

Wait....I think I'm more negative than you.........

[SwissMercenary]

The point that is missed here is that the government is the equivalent of "by the sword". Whatever is enacted by law is forced upon the people. By passing laws to tax people, the government is taking away property by force. For a citizen to not pay taxes is to violate a law which then means that the citizen would face "justice".

So, your local police station would run on charity donations?

The question posed by the article is; "Should the government take peoples money by force to spend on things that are not explicitly written into the Constitution (Charter of Government)?"

Back then, plenty of current issues were not forseen, or did not exist. Holding on to the technical practices (As opposed to the goals) of a 240 year old document sounds like a bad idea, allright.

And, I would pose a second question; "Should the government take the peoples money by force to spend on things that do not benefit "ALL" the people?"

All of the things you've cited benefit - or could benefit all people, should they take advantage of the services provided. It just so happens that some benefit more then others, which is again unavoidable.

It really should be a case-by-case basis.

Taxing all the people in the US to pay for some pork project (e.g. The bridge to nowhere), seems to be a violation of the peoples trust at best, and larceny at worst.

Case-by-case, it's an example of useless pork. On the other hand, taxing all the people to pay for something that an area needs, if it were to avoid facing economic ruin, but can't afford, is something else. Want an example? I live in a small municipality. We have two major roads running through it. Those roads are hammered day after day in the summer, by tourists going to the rec centers beyond them.

My municipality simply can't afford to pay for the repairs to the roads. Right now, they are a mess. Potholes every ten meters. More cracks then I'd like to count. What we're asking for is provincial and federal grant money to fix the road, already.

Do you think that since we can't afford to pay for repairs, we should just let our road be destroyed in the next year? Because without some grant money this summer, that's exactly what's going to happen.

We live in a society where the funding good ideas and compassion do not need to be done at the point of a gun.

I'd beg to differ. If anything, my involvement with local politics has amplified the importance of the gun. The masses simply wouldn't care otherwise. I see it every time I hear a report on the state of negotiations with neighbouring municipalities over budget issues.

People are, in general, greedy, self-serving, and looking out for themselves, and I don't blame them.. Some of us who can afford it get a warm and happy feel-good feeling when we give money for 'good causes'. However, with your ideas, all that'll happen is that the country will be ran off the sweat of their backs, while the rest will benefit.

We see the need to make apple pie. As of now, each of us puts an apple in the pot, from which we make the pie.

What you want is to give people the option to not put an apple in the pot.

Yet we still need the apple pie.

What's going to happen is that either a minority will slave away to make apple pie for the rest, or the apple pie will be far smaller.

You can argue about how many apples are currently wasted, how the pie gets burnt, or that you don't even like apple pie, but either way, we are all going to be in a worse situation then we already are.

[kandrathe]

So, your local police station would run on charity donations?

I think I clarified that in a different post. My property taxes pay for the bulk of the government in my locality, while the bulk of State and Federal taxes pays for entitlement programs.

Back then, plenty of current issues were not forseen, or did not exist. Holding on to the technical practices (As opposed to the goals) of a 240 year old document sounds like a bad idea, allright. All of the things you've cited benefit - or could benefit all people, should they take advantage of the services provided. It just so happens that some benefit more then others, which is again unavoidable.

I think there has been a slow erosion of federalism, a federation of States and slow replacement of it with a growing kleptocracy. The tax burden is not equally distributed, such that the middle class pay the most punitive taxes. The poor and lower middle classes pay nothing, and the rich do complain, and *are* unfairly burdened but are not "suffering" in a way that would make anyone care. My sister, a very rich socialist, once said "I am rich and I should pay 50% of my earnings in taxes". I don't think she understands freedom. I am not even opposed to having a safety net, but more things should be States issues, or local issues and not managed from Washington. Here is an example, why should all the citizens of the US pay for the rebuilding of a city that is 40 feet below sea level, built in river delta, and at high risk of being swamped by a large hurricane? Its not in a good place. If the people of Louisiana want to save their city, so be it, but here is an example of where compassion defies reason. If you live in a flood plain, live with it, or move. I have insurance so that if my house is destroyed by fire, or natural disaster I can rebuild one. Maybe I would move it to safer ground though.

It really should be a case-by-case basis. (omitted text) Case-by-case, it's an example of useless pork. On the other hand, taxing all the people to pay for something that an area needs, if it were to avoid facing economic ruin, but can't afford, is something else. Want an example? I live in a small municipality. We have two major roads running through it. Those roads are hammered day after day in the summer, by tourists going to the rec centers beyond them. My municipality simply can't afford to pay for the repairs to the roads. Right now, they are a mess. Potholes every ten meters. More cracks then I'd like to count. What we're asking for is provincial and federal grant money to fix the road, already.

Do you think that since we can't afford to pay for repairs, we should just let our road be destroyed in the next year? Because without some grant money this summer, that's exactly what's going to happen.
I'd beg to differ. If anything, my involvement with local politics has amplified the importance of the gun. The masses simply wouldn't care otherwise. I see it every time I hear a report on the state of negotiations with neighbouring municipalities over budget issues.

I think usable roads are a government expense in promoting commerce, and I also would have no problem making those roads Toll Roads such that those who use them pay for them.

People are, in general, greedy, self-serving, and looking out for themselves, and I don't blame them.. Some of us who can afford it get a warm and happy feel-good feeling when we give money for 'good causes'. However, with your ideas, all that'll happen is that the country will be ran off the sweat of their backs, while the rest will benefit.

I disagree on the nature of people. There are some who are greedy, but I find the majority of people are compassionate. I think this is why people are not really upset with the government taking away peoples money to give away for "noble" causes. I am not opposed to those taxes that are used to run the government, defend the nation, regulate and promote commerce, or provide for the general welfare. But, these things must benefit all (or at least a vast majority in every State) those who contribute. I also believe the tax burden should be shared equally, as a flat percentage. Every citizen should contribute an equal percentage, and while the rich would still contribute more, any thing that benefits one or burdens the people does so equally. I would also transition the burden of taxation from "Income" based to "Consumption" based to promote investments, savings, and conservation.

We see the need to make apple pie. As of now, each of us puts an apple in the pot, from which we make the pie. What you want is to give people the option to not put an apple in the pot. Yet we still need the apple pie. What's going to happen is that either a minority will slave away to make apple pie for the rest, or the apple pie will be far smaller. You can argue about how many apples are currently wasted, how the pie gets burnt, or that you don't even like apple pie, but either way, we are all going to be in a worse situation then we already are.

Ok, if it works for government, then why not the private sector, or persons? We pool all the money for all the people or businesses in a town, and then divide the pie evenly. We have eroded the principle that a person's property is their own. The government has the right to reach into your pocket and take what it deems appropriate for giving to people it deems more needy than you.

This is communism. If I don't want any pie and I refuse to give you my apples you send me to the gulag.

[eppie]

This is communism. If I don't want any pie and I refuse to give you my apples you send me to the gulag.

That is not communism, that is an act performed by a dictatorial regime. Don't make the mistake.

It is the same as if I would say that invading other countries using lies to justify it is capitalism. Well I hope it isn't.

Capitalism means that you sell goods to poor countries for high prizes, and at same time buy back similar goods for very low prizes...and than say you are giving aid.

[Sir_Die_alot]

So, your local police station would run on charity donations?

I misread this at first as "So, your local police station would run charity donations?" and thought you finally got the point why it is wrong to use taxes for charities.

[kandrathe]

That is not communism, that is an act performed by a dictatorial regime. Don't make the mistake.

It is the same as if I would say that invading other countries using lies to justify it is capitalism. Well I hope it isn't.

Capitalism means that you sell goods to poor countries for high prizes, and at same time buy back similar goods for very low prizes...and than say you are giving aid.

Yes, sending you to the gulag is a dictator thing. Sending you to jail for tax evasion is the US way, and is not a dictatorship... because we elect our jailers.

It is funny to hear you try to describe Capitalism. What you described is the fundamentals of markets. Goods in high demand yield higher prices, while abundant commodities fetch lower prices. Some people can buy low priced commodities from poorer nations, then Capitalists who have invested in the means of processing them and manufacturing them into desirable goods can then market them for lucrative profits. For taking the risk of investing in the means of that transformation, the Capitalist is rewarded with profits. Marketeers can merely buy low and sell high, taking risks that the prices of commodities will fluctuate.

Now back to apple pie; You go out and buy apple seeds, grow your trees, tend them while they bear their fruit and have all the risk and pay insurance to cover you if something bad should happen. The day comes to pick your apples and the government truck pulls up and demands half your apples.

You are OK with the government getting some apples, because the government built the road to get your apples to market, and they repelled the fruit invaders of Zog from taking all the lands away. But, what roasts your rooster is that the government takes most of your apples to give to tragic cases who may have done nothing while you busted your butt in toil. A kleptocracy is when the government takes from those who have wealth and gives it to themselves. A communist dictatorship state is when they do it by force.