This is a comment I posted on a different thread in response to a snotty question from Balbus. It really didn't belong on that thread, and I'd be interested in how others with a libertarian orientation might respond to his question. I hope for a friendlier audience here! I am more than happy to address your question about taxation- I don't recall you asking me this, but won't say you didn't. The question cannot be seriously addressed with a few words, so here's my best off-the-cuff answer to a question that, in the way you posed it, reveals you own ignorance about the concept of liberty (I'll get to that). You ask a non-trivial question that, frankly, involves deeper thinking about the dynamics of freedom than I have given to the matter. Those who prefer to avoid serious thinking, and take their cues from popular culture, clearly will not want to consider my thoughts. Yes, as an ultimate step toward a free society, I advocate for the elimination of compulsory taxation. A couple of key works: 1) ultimate: eliminating compulsory taxation would be the very last step in the devilishly complex transition to a free society. We are a long way from that point, and at this juncture in history, I would be satisfied to see us move in an evolutionary fashion from the statist, authoritarian regime you endorse to a freer soceity. 2) compulsory: we still need taxation to fund the legitimate role of government (defending the shores, maintaining a judicial system and legislature, as well as a law enforcement capability. Immediately, you will ask, how could taxes be anything but compulsory? My answer to that is do not under-estimate people's ability to act in their own self interest. And why would it be in their own self interest? Some people will even be motivated to give to institutions that they value (amazingly enough, some people even donate money, beyond their legal requirement, to the government today in the USA). If you have no assets, you might reasonably conclude you don't want to pay taxes. Fair enough. But suppose you own real estate. If you do not pay taxes, and someone comes and squats on your land, the government will not move against the squatter- you are on your own to deal with the situation in a legal manner. Similarly, if you run a business. You want to be able to enforce contracts? Well pay up. If your business is simple enough, and perhaps you know your customers, or deal only with a trusted community, you may decide you don't choose to pay taxes. But if you deal with strangers, as most businesses of any size necessarily must, then you will find it in your best interest to pay for the services (access to courts and police) that the government offers. This is a bare beginning of a description of how government in a free society could be funded. Does it answer all questions? No. What to do about children in need? I would like to think that a humane society would find a way to care for them through voluntary donations (and that has frequently happened in history). But a civilized society cannot allow children to starve, and, frankly, I don't think in any but the most extreme circumstances, that they would in a free society). However, such edge cases would be addressed as they came up- neither I, nor anyone else, can answer all the questions that might come up in the transition to a free society. My husband, a retired career soldier, responds that he thinks it's unlikely that a voluntary system of taxation could fund a modern military for the USA. Once again, I think that if people value their liberty, they will find a way to defend it. But basically my answer is that I have no answer to a society that cannot, or will not, defend itself: it will not long survive. Early on, I said the way you pose the question indicates a certain ignorance on your part. As you can tell, I am no anarchist: I cannot see how a modern society can function entirely without government, and I realize that even the essential functions of government cannot be handled without funding. But as a libertarian, I seek to maximize a properly conceived freedom and seek to live in a society in which people face minimal restrictions from government (they may- and should- face restrictions imposed by customs and norms).
Srg LOL so first of all you are saying you don’t read the posts – oh come on pull the other one – this question has been asked of you several times and not just by me – the only way you could have ‘missed it’ is if you wilfully chose to miss it. LOL – oh my – someone does think a lot of themselves OK as we have worked out you don’t really read other peoples posts because a lot of the subjects and issues you raise have already been covered in numerous threads on this forum. I think if you actually began interacting with others rather than feeling so self-important you might actually begin to learn something, in my experience people who think they are clever seldom are.[/quote]
Srg This is very much in keeping with Marxist communist thinking (which is actually a branch of anarchist thinking). The idea was that there would be a withering away of the state "Withering away of the state" is a Marxist concept coined by Friedrich Engels referring to the idea that, with realization of the ideals of socialism, the social institution of a state will eventually become obsolete and disappear as the society will be able to govern itself without the state and its coercive enforcement of the law. What you are basically pushing is a form of right wing libertarian utopianism or anarcho-capitalism Try reading The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (it’s only a short book) Demand the Impossible – by Peter Marshall (it’s a long book, but you only need to read bits of it, i'll help you out)
Anarcho-capitalism. ‘Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism by Peter Marshall http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...17809/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_2_1/026-7013781-2335648 A very good introduction to Anarchy and a book I’ve often recommended to people on this forum. He goes into the philosophical underpinnings of right wing libertarianism, which he terms anarcho-capitalism. ** Chapter 36: The New Right and Anarcho-capitalism Anarcho-capitalism has recently had a considerable vogue in the West where it has helped put the role of the State back on the political agenda. It has become a major ideological challenge to the dominant liberalism which sees a role for government in the protection of property. The anarcho-capitalists would like to dismantle government and allow complete _laissez-faire_ in the economy. Its adherents propose that all public services be turned over to private entrepreneurs, even public spaces like town halls, streets and parks. Free market capitalism, they insist, is hindered not enhanced by the State. Anarcho-capitalists share Adam Smith's confidence that somehow private interest will translate itself into public good rather than public squalor. They are convinced that the 'natural laws' of economics can do without the support of positive man-made laws. The 'invisible hand' of the market will be enough to bring social order. Anarcho-capitalism has recently had the greatest impact in the United States, where the Libertarian Party has taken it up as the house ideology, and where Republicans like Ronald Reagan wanted to be remembered for cutting taxation and for getting 'the government off peoples' backs'. In the United Kingdom, neo-Conservatives argue that 'there is no such thing as society' and wish to 'roll back the frontiers of the State' -- a view adopted evangelically, in theory if not always in practice, by Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990. State socialism is attacked not so much because it is egalitarian but because it seeks to accrue more powers for the State to exercise centrally. The phenomenon of anarcho-capitalism is not however new. With the demise of Benjamin Tucker's journal _Liberty_ in 1907, American individualist anarchism lost its principal voice; but its strain of libertarianism continued to re-emerge occassionally in the offerings of isolated thinkers. The young essayist Randolph Bourne, writing outside the anarchist movement, distinguished between society and the State, invented the famous slogan 'War is the Health of the State', and drew out the authoritarian and conformist dangers of the 'herd'.[1] FRANZ OPPENHEIMER's view of the State as 'the organization of the political means' and as the 'systematization of the predatory process over a given territory' influenced libertarians and conservatives alike in the twenties.[2] The Jeffersonian liberal ALBERT JAY NOCK reached anarchist conclusions in _Our_Enemy_The_State_ (1935) at the time of the New Deal. A conservative of the _laissez-faire_ school, he foresaw 'a steady progress in collectivism running into a military despotism of a severe type'.[3] It would involve steadily-increasing centralization, bureaucracy, and political control of the market. The resulting State-managed economy would be so inefficient and corrupt that it would need forced labor to keep it going. Nock's warning did not go unheeded. FRIEDRICH A. HAYEK spelt out in _The_Road_to_Serfdom_ (1944) the dangers of collectivism. In his restatement of classic liberalism in _The_Constitution_of_Liberty_ (1960), he rejected the notion of social justice and argued that the market creates spontaneous social order. But while he wished to reduce coercion to a minimum, he accepted the need for the coercion of a minimal State to prohibit coercive acts by private parties through law enforcement. He also accepted taxation and compulsory military service. While a harsh critic of egalitarianism and of government intervention in the economy, he was ready to countenance a degree of welfare provision which cannot be adequately provided by the market. His views have had an important influence on neo-Conservatives, especially those on the right wing of the Conservative Party in Britain. Anarcho-capitalists like David Friedman and Murray Rothbard go much further. In some ways, their position appears to be a revival of the principles of the Old Right against the New Deal which sought government interference in the economy, but they are not only motivated by a nostalgia for a thoroughly free market but are aggressively anti-authoritarian. Where Tucker called anarchism 'consistent Manchesterism', that is taking the nineteenth-century _laissez-faire_ school of economists to their logical conclusion, anarcho-capitalists might be called consistent Lockeans. Following Locke, classic liberals argue that the principals task of government is to protect the natural rights to life, liberty and property because a 'state of nature' where there is no common law the enjoyment of such rights would be uncertain and inconvenient. The anarch-capitalists also ask, like Locke in his _Second_Treatise_, 'If Man in the state of Nature be so free as has been said, if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest and subject to nobody, why will he part with his freedom?'[4] Unlike Locke, however, the anarch-capitalists do not find such a state of nature without a common judge inconvenient or uncertain. They maintain that even the minimal State is unnecessary since the defence of person and property can be carried out by private protection agencies. DAVID FRIEDMAN sees such agencies as both brokers of mini-social contracts and producers of 'laws' which conform to the market demand for rules to regulate commerce. Each person would be free to subscribe to a protective association of his choice, since 'Protection from coercion is an economic good'.[5] Apart from adumbrating _The_Machinery_of_Freedom_ (1973), Friedman has populated Hayek's defence of capitalism as the best antidote to the serfdom of collectivism and the State. The writings of AYN RAND, a refugee from the Soviet Union, best represent the intellectual background to the new right-wing libertarianism in the United States. In her _The_Virtue_of_Selfishness:_ A_New_Concept_of_Egoism_ (1964), she attempted a philosophical defence of egoism while in her novels she portrayed a superior individual fighting the forces of collectivism, particularly in the form of the State. Her superior individual, driven by a Nietzschean will to power, appears in the guise of a capitalist entrepreneur who is presented as the source of all wealth and creator of all progress. Rand claimed that she had a direct knowledge of objective reality, and her 'Objectivist' movement had a considerable vogue in the sixties. Like most anarch-capitalists, she is convinced of the truth of her own views, which to others appear mere dogma. She remains a minimal statist rather than a strict anarchist. Amongst anarch-capitalist apologists, the economist MURRAY ROTHBARD is probably most aware of the anarchist tradition. He was originally regarded as an extreme right-wing Republican, but went on to edit la Boetie's libertarian classic _Of_Voluntary_Servitude_ and now calls himself an anarchist. 'If you wish to know how the libertarians regard the State and any of its acts," he wrote in _For_A_New_Liberty:_ _The_Libertarian_Manifesto_ (1973), 'simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place.' He reduces the libertarian creed to one central axiom, 'that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else'.[6] Neither the State nor any private party therefore can initiate or threaten the use of force against any person for any purpose. Free individuals should regulate their affairs and dispose of their property only by voluntary agreement based on contractual obligation. Rejecting the State as a 'protection' with an illegitimate claim on the monopoly of force, Rothbard would like to see it dissolved, as would Friedman, into social and market arrangements. He proposes that disputes over violations of persons and property may be settled voluntarily by arbitration firms whose decisions are enforceable by private protection agencies. Rothbard described an anarchist society where 'there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual'. But where Tucker recognized no inherent right to property, Rothbard insists on the need for a 'basic libertarian code of the inviolate right of person and property'.[7] In addition, for all his commitment to a Stateless society, Rothbard is willing to engage in conventional politics. He helped found the Libertarian Party in the USA which wants to abolish the entire federal regulatory apparatus as well as social security, welfare, public education, and taxation. Accepting Bourne's view that war is the health of the State, the Party wants the United States to withdraw from the United Nations, end its foreign commitments, and reduce its military forces to those required for minimal defence. Rothbard argued at the 1977 Libertarian Party Congress that to become a true libertarian it was necessary to be 'born again', not once ut twice, in a baptism of reason as well as of will. Since in his view libertarianism is the only creed compatible with the nature of man and the world, he is convinced that it will win because it is true. Whatever the workers and bureaucrats might think or want, Statism will collapse of its own contradictions and the free market will prevail throughout the world. However libertarian in appearance, there are some real difficulties in the anarch-capitalists' position. If laws and courts are replaced by arbitrary firms, why should an individual accept their verdict? And since he 'buys' justice, what assurances are there that the verdicts would be fair and impartial? If the verdicts are enforced by private protection agencies, it would seem likely, as ROBERT NOZICK has pointed out, that a dominant protective agency (the one offering the most powerful and comprehensive protection) would eventually emerge through free competition.[8] A _de_facto_ territorial monopoly would thus result from the competition among protection agencies which would then constitute a proto-State. The only difference between the 'ultraminimal' State of a dominant protection agency and a minimal State would be that its services would be available only to those who buy them. Nozick's work _State,_Anarchy_and_Utopia_ (1974) is widely regarded as one of the most important works in contemporary political philosophy. Inspired in part by individual anarchist arguments, especially those of Spooner and Tucker, and replying to the libertarian view of Rothbard and Rand, he calls for a minimal State to oversee private protection agencies to ensure contracts are kept by property-owning individuals. He insists however that a man ruled by others against his will, whose life and property are under their control, is no less a slave because he has the vote and periodically may 'choose' his masters. Nozick has helped to make libertarian and anarchist theory acceptable in academic circles. But in the end he opts for a nightwatchman State in order to protect the individual's rights to life, liberty and property. In his 'framework for utopia', he proposes a society of independent city-States organized according to their inhabitants' preferences. He defends capitalism under the theory of just entitlement, arguing that just acquisitions and just transfers made in the absence of force or fraud legitimize the distribution of wealth resulting from capitalist exchange. However poorly a person may fare in the exercise of human liberty, there is no moral reason to correct market forces by redistributing wealth. The acceptable maxim of capitalism for Nozick is therefore: 'From each as they choose, to each as they are chosen'.[9] Nozick joins a group of American philosophers like JOHN HOSPERS and ERIC MACK who adopt 'minarchy' rather than anarchy. They call for a minimal State, restricting the scope of the modern state to Locke's 'common judge with authority' to make laws (for the protection of property), to punish thieves and malefactors, and to defend the nation against foreign aggression.[10] They are right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists in the tradition of Jefferson, insisting 'that government is best which governs least'. A more thorough-going philosophical defence of anarchism has been put forward by ROBERT PAUL WOLFF. He rejects the political legitimacy of the State on a neo-Kantian principle of moral autonomy. he assumes that in so far as people are rational and are to act they must be autonomous. The autonomous man who determines his own acts refuses to be ruled and denies all claims to political authority: 'For the autonomous man, there is no such thing, strictly speaking, as a command.'[11] Wolff does not however see any immediate implications for his philosophical anarchism and ethical individualism. In his 'Utopian Glimpses of a World Without States' in _A_Defense_of_Anarchism_ (1970), he maintains that a high order of social co-ordination in a society in which no one claims legitimate authority would only be possible after its members had achieved a high level of moral and intellectual development. Indeed, rather than offering a defence of anarchism as a political theory, he seems more concerned with elaborating a form of moral and political scepticism.[12] Wolff's practical proposals are also problematic. He recommends a form of 'instant direct democracy' based on a system of 'voting machines' in every home linked to a computer in Washington. Each Bill would then be voted on by all the people after it had been discussed by their representatives in a national assembly. But such a system could easily lead to representatives manipulating their votes as they do in existing parliamentary democracies. There is also a big difference, recognized in part by Wolff, between the passive role of listener and the active role of participant in a debate. The kind of direct democracy practiced in ancient Athens, which actively involved all the citizens, would appear to be preferable to television viewers being merely able to register their response to decisions made by an elected elite. Wolff's proposal would turn citizenship into little more than a spectator-sport. He allows no meaningful debate or collective discussion of ends. Although he recommends extreme economic decentralization, Wolff alines himself with the anarcho-capitalists and right-libertarians by wanting to retain private property and the market to co-ordinate human behavior. Again, he suggests that the army could be run on the basis of voluntary commitment and submission to orders but this would seem little different from existing forms of voluntary conscription. In the utopias of the anarcho-capitalists, there is little reason to believe that the rich and powerful will not continue to exploit and oppress the powerless and poor as they do at present. It is difficult to imagine that protective services could impose their ideas of fair procedure without resorting to coercion. With the free market encouraging selfishness, there is no assurance that 'public goods' like sanitation and clean water would be provided for all. Indeed, the anarcho-capitalists deny the very existence of collective interests and responsibilities. They reject the rich communitarian tradition of the ancient Greek _polis_ in favor of the most limited form of possessive individualism. In their drive for self-interest, they have no conception of the general good or public interest. In his relationship with society, the anarcho-capitalist stands alone, an egoistic and calculating consumer; society is considered to be nothing more than a loose collection of autonomous individuals. The anarcho-capitalist definition of freedom is entirely negative. It calls for the absence of coercion but cannot guarantee the positive freedom of individual autonomy and independence. Nor does it recognize the equal right of all to the means of subsistence. Hayek speaks on behalf of the anarcho-capitalist when he warns: 'Above all we must recognize that we may be free and yet miserable.'[13] Others go even further to insist that liberty and bread are not synonymous and that we have 'the liberty to die of hunger'.[14] In the name of freedom, the anarcho-capitalists would like to turn public spaces into private property, but freedom does not flourish behind high fences protected by private companies but expands in the open air when it is enjoyed by all. Anarcho-capitalists are against the State simply because they are capitalists first and foremost. Their critique of the State ultimately rests on a liberal interpretation of liberty as the inviolable rights to and of private property. They are not concerned with the social consequences of capitalism for the weak, powerless and ignorant. Their claim that all would benefit from a free exchange in the market is by no means certain; any unfettered market system would most likely sponsor a reversion to an unequal society with defence associations perpetuating exploitation and privilege. If anything, anarcho-capitalism is merely a free-for-all in which only the rich and cunning would benefit. It is tailor-made for 'rugged individualists' who do not care about the damage to others or to the environment which they leave in their wake. The forces of the market cannot provide genuine conditions for freedom any more than the powers of the State. The victims of both are equally enslaved, alienated and oppressed. As such, anarcho-capitalism overlooks the egalitarian implications of traditional individualist anarchists like Spooner and Tucker. In fact, few anarchists would accept 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice. Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practising voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists.[15]
Srg So basically you are saying that you believe in compulsory taxation until some utopian age begins that you seem to imply may never happen. So the utopian in you believes in freedom – but the real world and realist person you are is opposed to freedom – again you come across as those types of communists that talked about the withering of the state but in the real world gave themselves more power. It also has the same smell of self-interest. It leaves me with the impression that your whole ‘freedom’ argument is a scam that you know that the utopia is not really going to happen but that is a good distraction from what you really want which is a society that serves the interests of the advantaged. I mean look at the things you want to force people to pay for – as I’ve already explained before they are all things that traditionally have been used (and abused) to serve the interests of wealth and property. Maintaining a judicial system and legislature – If you have read any social history you will know that laws and the legal system have in the main been part been tools of suppression over the lives of the disadvantaged. Do you know anything about the history of the fight for workers and civil rights in the US? Law enforcement – the same the police have traditionally been a tool of suppression Military spending – and if the police fail in the suppression who do they call. Thing is what you are suggesting is not the future but the pasted before public reforms – It seems to me that the political history of the 20th century (in the industrialised nations) has been to one degree or another about the curtailment of the adverse effects of 19th century exploitative capitalism (some call classical liberalism). People in many nations fought for voting rights, social benefits, safer working conditions, progressive taxation, and decent living wages. The result of that movement was that the economic benefits of production were much more distributed. Many people saw their wages grow and in the period between the end of WWII and 1970 many in Europe and the US gain middle class status. But from the 70’s onward a new idea was promoted in some of these nations (often referred to as neo-liberalism) it was in many ways opposed to the ‘distributive’ system that had developed. One thing it promoted was economic globalisation, which basically allowed back some aspects of exploitative capitalism by promoting the moving of production to nations that had not developed the more distributive systems away from those nations that had. In this way the long fought for distributive system has been undermined in those places where it had developed. Neo-liberals argue that to ‘compete’ in the global market the elements of the distributive system need to be dismantled what is needed they say is deregulation, the cutting of welfare, tax cuts that benefit the rich, lower wages, weak government oversight etc etc.
srg Covered - As you point out if you actually look at the historical records there never was a time when private charity was good at tackling the problems of the disadvantaged it was also often corrupt, patchy, as well as been ethnically, religiously and politically discriminatory. The idea that it could be is promoted by those that would be advantaged from it which would be the wealthiest, (remember that in multiple studies have shown that as a proportion of wealth the poorer actually give more to charity than do the wealthy). Also wealth sponsored propaganda also spread the idea of the ‘deserving and undeserving’ poor (The deserving being those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any. And the undeserving being those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are scroungers and wasters who don’t deserve any help). Also it not always about direct giving but having regulations and systems in place that are targeted with helping, like laws that make sure where people live are decent and healthy with authorities charged with making sure those standards are complied with. Or making sure that money goes to where it is needed, for example a person in place A (a comfortable suburb) might see little reason to give to charity as they see little hardship but only a few miles away is place B that does need help. Again that doesn’t fit in with history – children have been allowed to starve, many children in the US today do to bed hungry, many children and adults died because of dangerous workplaces, the disadvantaged die at a younger age than the advantaged and so on – as I’ve commented before the right wing libertarian dream seems less about freedom and more about self-interest and fuck everyone else. I’m just surprised so many fall for this deeply flawed philosophy.
Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire - Wikipedia It should be remembered that while 146 workers died in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire and the owners were indicted for murder they were actually acquitted and that although the plaintiffs did win compensation to the amount of $75 per deceased victim the insurance company paid the owners about $60,000 more than the reported losses, or about $400 per casualty. They came out with a profit. Thing is that actions by workers demonstrating against unsafe conditions were often treated harshly by the law as one socialist explained at the memorial service “every time the workers come out in the only way they know to protest against conditions which are unbearable, the strong hand of the law is allowed to press down heavily upon us. Public officials have only words of warning to us—warning that we must be intensely peaceable, and they have the workhouse just back of all their warnings. The strong hand of the law beats us back, when we rise, into the conditions that make life unbearable” Change did come and some of it was driven by empathy but some of the drive came from fear of the upper and middle class of lower class revolution. And there was real fear of socialist revolution (see the red scares in the US) and that drove reform especially after the setting up of Soviet Russia (established wealth and power thought it better to give workers’ something rather than have them take everything, fighting all the time to keep it as little as possible) it seems to me that with the wane of that fear come a resurgence in capitalist exploitation.
Srg Now what was it I said when you claimed that you didn't run away from debates, that you did answer questions and did address criticisms of your views and called on me to give any examples of these things happening....It was probably was something snotty like you only need to look in any thread you have ever been in.
Srg Once again you have claimed in another thead that you don't run away from debates - so where are you?
I'm a minimalist, so I guess I understand and also like Mrs. Greene's OP I'm single with no children, yet I pay lots of taxes for schools and education. If a person would like to have a child, that person should pay for the child's education, not me. I try to not use the government for any resources. I live in cold, snowy, frozen Wisconsin, so government plowing my roads is a good source for taxation. I believe in a strong military and law enforcement, so I'm ok with taxation for those purposes. I understand taxation for roads and highways, but I disagree with taxation for wayside and rest stops on roads and highways. If there was a documented volunteer hours credit to shave off some taxation I'd be all for it. I have a post hole digger and a 5 ft level. Just tell me, government entity where you want the 4ft hole dug for the STOP sign post, which I'll be glad to do if you'll just trim a little fat off my property taxes. My town administrator told me it's about 100 bucks in government labor costs to dig a hole, put the pole in, plumb the pole, cover the hole with dirt and discard the remaining dirt. My neighbor has a plow on his truck. He's fully insured. He'd love to plow the town's streets to shave off some property taxation. He's also a fellow minimalist
Pete As I’ve mentioned before (and above) most right wing libertarian and small government types think in selfish individualistic terms rather in terms of what is beneficial to the community as a whole. They wish to only pay for those things that they think directly benefit themselves and not for things that benefit society as a whole. They only see what they can see and refuse to look beyond that. It is a ‘me’ centric mentality rather than an ‘us’ based mentality For example educating children is beneficial to society as a whole and educated children go on to become the engineers and administrators and judges, who as such build and maintain the roads and bridges of the highway system, underpin the military and oversee law enforcement, they do the research that underpins the economy and fill the hospitals with doctors and so on and so on. Also as FDR said “Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education”. So it is indirectly beneficial to everyone in a society to have a well-funded education system. * You say you want strong law enforcement – but the best way to prevent crime is through social programmes that stop people turning to crime, social services that step in to stop children suffering hardship or abuse, benefit systems that stop families from going hungry, and again education and training programmes that give people hope. The problem is that most ‘me’ centric people’s attitude is that if such programmes are not directly helping them (and they don’t because many of them don’t need them) they so no reason for funding such things although in the vast majority of times paying for the symptoms of not funding such programmes actually cost more than having them. * Minimal just means lacking in depth, giving a subject or issue little or no thought – have you ever thought of thinking beyond the minimal, beyond the ‘me’ and begin seeing the greater complexities of the ‘us’?
Balbus - Why haven't you ever thought of thinking to use quote bubbles in the way they were meant to be used so that a member can be given proper notification to respond to a comment or question?
I think ultimately - and for the long-term - conservative tax policy will be one of our primary shortcomings.
