The government is not a mugger. The mugger is not giving you anything in return. That is simply hyperbole.
I didn't say the government is a mugger. I gave taxes (only one aspect of government) and getting mugged (not muggers as such) as examples of situations where you nominally have a choice, but realistically do not.
I could come up with a list of other examples, they would in many ways be different from each other, but using them as examples of some idea is accurate, and doesn't resemble hyperbole.
So, leaving society will impoverish you?
Most likely.
Therefore, you admit that being in society enriches you.
Government is not society, and most of it isn't necessary for the existence of a functioning society. "Society benefits you" is next to meaningless as an argument for having a big expensive interventionist government, esp. because when government gets very big it causes society to benefit me less.
Are sidewalks necessary? Are storm drains necessary?
Neither is necessarily part of government, and if we are going to have government do them, both together are a minuscule part of government spending. We don't spend well over $5tril on sidewalks and storm drains, or on all the examples you list put together.
Is the weather service necessary?
No. Whether or not its beneficial could be argued. Its functions are clearly beneficial, but aren't necessarily something that has to be done by government. Still I don't oppose the service, you want to keep it fine, we keep it, but once again its insignificant in terms of government's total cost.
Are national parks and monuments necessary?
No. In this case I'd even say definitely no. But again not a big deal, they don't cost too much, again a minuscule part of government.
All your examples are small change in terms of government spending.
Sometimes government can do things better than the private sector.
Sure, I'm not arguing for anarchy. But well over $5tril worth of stuff better per year just in the US? Rather doubtful, and its not like government is stopping here. Politicians talk about adding more and more that would cost additional hundreds of billions and eventually trillions per year, and even if they don't add anything our entitlement programs are set on a path to explode upwards even from their already huge size.
Right now, that is the bailing out of the financial system.
Well bailing things out is something the feds are going to to better, because they can grab money by force (or they can create money by running the printing presses, or by manipulating credit), so they will always be able to throw around money for bailouts up to the point where they start exhausting their ability to do so (and at that point no one else will be able to run big bailouts either).
But in this case the real "better" may be "not at all", or "smaller". Just being able to toss money around in vast quantities doesn't mean your doing something wise with the money.
Who knew that GM actually floated (maybe still is) the idea that the Treasury purchase a big chunk of the company?
Hopefully the government says no.
Not only because it will be taking from tax payers to give to GM, but also because the strength of a free market includes the fact that firms and investments fail. If you block a lot of the destruction from "creative destruction" you put the creation part in danger as well.
Note that SS is a self-funding insurance program.
For now. But in the future SS taxes will not equal SS spending.
Also note that "self funded" is irrelevant, and in an important sense simply false.
Spending is not self funded. The spending and tax are separate things. You could create a tax and give it the name of any area of government spending, that doesn't make the actual burden of the spending any less, the tax is just how you apply the burden.
It needs to stop being a regressive program which means removing the income cap on contributions.
That would be an enormous tax increase, and would have quite negative results.
Also, unless other modifications are made to the program it would entail higher benefits for highly paid employees after they retire. Extra government spending on the relatively well off is the last thing we need. |
