>It has everything with who the primary producer of wealth is. You have to get past this notion that all the toys belong to you. Your kindergarden teacher is going to send a note to your parents that you do not play well with others. I know this is going to be a hard breakthrough for you, but once you get past the notion that all the toys belong to you it is going to be a lot better.
Think of it another way. If what you stated were true you would be obligated to give all your assets to the church. >Disagree - the level of taxation must be balanced against the >perceived needs of good governance, lest the a majority decide that >good governance means taxing the wealth of the minority to deliver >services to the majority. False distinction. By definition excessive taxation would not be good governance. This argument is only a means to short change the needs of good governance. You deny good governance and then use that to argue for evil. >Agreed - but government is not the only agent or means of civilization. I also mentioned the church. What do you want to add to the list? >How is a presumptive preference for letting labor keep the fruits of >that labor where possible equal to being a looter? A looter takes but >does not produce wealth - sort of like government now that I think >about it The "presumptive preference" for not contributing one's fair share is equal to being a looter. If you were to move to a mountain top. Cut yourself totally from civilization. Hunt and grow your own food with your bare hands. Make your own clothes. Etc. Etc. The your fair share would be greatly reduced. And (gosh!) you would not be expected to pay any taxes. >No, I don't want everything you claim to be a benefit and don't want >to have to pay for roles a government should not take on. Roles -- that in your opinion -- government should not take on. Here we are again. Your kindergarden teachers have failed you. Perhaps your school dustrict did not have enough resources to have done a good job? >You can't be that stupid, so why make such absurd statements. >Zimbabwe is the ultimate example of government existing only to >perpetuate itself rather than serve the population. Zimbabwe has no functioning government. But if you want to defend Mugabe then we can pick Somalia instead. Go to a land where there is no functioning government as see how good life is. See first hand what taxes pay for. >> Then how can the Europeans provide better health care at a much >> lower cost? >Prove they do - not in the aggregate, but compared to what can be >purchased on the open market here. Consider time to deliver services >in your argument I responded with some of my 1st hand experience in another post. I'm not going to write a dissertation to respond to your inability to look up facts. Start with the reference materials cited by Jordan. >You mean providing a service that others are willing to pay for? All >corporations are greedy on some level, if by greed you mean want to >prosper. You seem unwilling to make necessary distinctions... greed n. An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth. >> Transportation, health care, education, law enforcement, etc. etc. >None of those meet the criteria I gave. That is expected. You would deny any an all good examples. >Example of a self-defined neocon doing either please. Remember I am >not one. The newspapers were full of such in 2008. The neocons were even threatening Congressional investigation of our local governments. You can Google as well as I can. Read and learn. >Recognize the name Barney Frank? Chris Dodd? They, not Bush, blocked >serious reform of Fannie and Freddie on more than one occasion. These organizations have been under attack for many years. The attacks were funded by those Wall Street banks that have brought us to ruin. They thought they were not getting enough of the profits. They wanted them all. Barney Frank is a very smart (and often very funny) man who we are blessed to have during this trying time. >Citations please. Remember I did not vote for Bush - I am no fan of >his, but I don't see his fingerprints on the housing mess. Once again, I'm not going to write a dissertation to respond to your inability to look up facts. >No, that happens when government runs by your rules - picking winners >and losers. Set asides for "protected groups". Income redistribution >as an end to itself. Government as an agent of social engineering. Well at least you did not bring up eugenics. Your toss out these terms like they were boogeymen. Giving a poor person a hand up becomes "income redistribution." Trying to right a crashed economy becomes "social engineering." You need to stop hyperventilating. ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
