Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: fresc who wrote (7629)	1/16/2006 5:06:17 PM
From: Ichy Smith	Respond to of 37536

Life was better before we paid half our income to support the governing of our country.

To: fresc who wrote (7629)	1/16/2006 6:19:20 PM
From: Gulo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37536

Are you saying life was better a century ago? You sure like to re-interpret what people say, don't you? If you are unsure of how to interpret what I wrote, I give you leave to interpret it literally. ;) I wrote: "... the acceptance of a government role in so many areas of life is a recent one." What I actually meant was: "... the acceptance of a government role in so many areas of life is a recent one." The only value judgment I made was to confess that I, like many others, see value in supporting a social safety net at the expense of slower economic growth. On the flip side, I expressed concern that there are insufficient checks on government spending. Now that you've asked for a value statement, though, I can give you one. ;) Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of "tragedy of the commons" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons). Once taxes are collected, the money becomes property held in common (at least it should be, even if sometimes politicians and bureaucrats treat it like their own). That means this money is subject to the same laws of economics that any common property is subject to. There is no disincentive for anyone to make claims on the common pot. The more insidious aspect is the welfare state's claim on its citizens' labour. Half of the benefit of my labour is now confiscated and treated as common property. Just as common property is subject to abuse, there is little reason for others to take less benefit from my ongoing servitude. That is the inevitable economic reason taxes and statism, and therefor citizen's servitude, have grown over the last century. Now, these facts are not given in an attempt to decry my servitude. With all due respects to Monsieur de la Boétie, if I honestly felt that I would be better off a free man than a servile cog in the state's machine, I would opt out as my father has done. He intentionally earns less than the taxable minimum and gives away anything extra. He accepts "subsidies" in the form of reduced property taxes or water charges (he's a subsistence farmer) but does not accept cash from the state.* That's not for me - not yet anyway. Keeping half the loaf of bread is better than living of the few crumbs the state can't be bothered to confiscate. If I am to be an acquiescent servant of the state, however, I would feel better if I had some assurance that my servitude provided the greatest possible benefit to society. I would like it if all laws had to have an >80% approval rating before they could be imposed on the minority. I'd like to see government spending priorities influenced by sound economic judgement and objective assessment of benefits. And I'd like another bowl of soup, please. -g *He does accept health care from his oppressors, but only because there are no legal alternatives.