From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Want _Your_ Blood to Boil too?
Organization: Advocates for Self-Government - Davy Crockett Chapter
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 12:19:40 GMT

duggan@terminus.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan) writes:
: In article <1992Aug19.133159.4961@tijc02.uucp> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
: >I want people to be able to get the necessities in life.  I think people
: >in society should provide them -- voluntarily.  Americans give
: >$100,000,000 a year to charities in time and money voluntarily.  People
: >are willing to pay for the necessities of other people.  Government
: >collects its money by using force and has no incentive to use the money
: >wisely so the quality of the services will be poor and the cost high.
: >
: 
: Okay, let's say your hundred million a year figure is true.  
: Conservately, I would estimate that 10% of the U.S. population
: lives in poverty.  That's 25 million people.  So, the rest of
: the generous Americans (I hate the word USans) give a paltry 
: $4 a year to each of these people, who, by some definition, are
: needy.  That doesn't sound like enough to really help at all.
: Even if it's only a million people, $100 is nowhere near enough.

Oops.  Sorry I left off a set of zeros.  I meant $100 billion.  That
means $4,000 a year.  Current welfare from the state would give more but
about 2/3 goes to pay "administrative costs."  It is also a
self-perpetuating system since those that work in the system are not
rewarded for getting people off the system but to get more people on the
system so they can raise their budget.
: 
: >This is where you have implied force.  Force is needed to collect taxes.
: >If a robber comes into your home and steals money from you, this is
: >morally wrong.  If 10 robbers steal from you, it is still wrong.  Same
: >with 100.  How many people does it take in a gang to make the immorality
: >of robbery a moral tax?
: 
: There is very little similarity between the government and a robber
: who steals from you.  Does the robber provide you with police 
: protection (obviously not :-), fire protection, roads, etc?
: The robber isn't providing you anything with the money he
: takes.  You might argue that the government doesn't provide 
: services effectively or efficiently with its (your) money, but they 
: are provided.  

Is it morally okay if a robber does give you something in return.  If a
robber comes into your house and demands your car and gives you a
bicycle in return and tells you it is better for your health and the
environment, and he will even give a bicycle to a poor family because of
the car he took from you, does it now become moral?  What things can we
do to make the immorality of roberry into the morallity of taxation?  If
I promise you "protection" I am offering a service.  Is this protection
money, as gathered by gangsters not robbery?
-- 
Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604, (615)283-0084, uunet!tijc02!pjs269
"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and
leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.allsysop,alt.bbs.ads,co.general,nyx.mis