Federal taxes are necessary for a decent society.
By
knappster
on March 11, 2007
Adapted from a comment by Rachel, this claim is a litmus test for statism.
Of related interest, I highly recommend this brilliant essay by Steven LaTulippe.
EXCERPTS:
As for organic culture, I've often mused that the Amish are a clear and present danger to our system. As Lew Rockwell noted recently, they take no welfare, they pay for their own medical care (in cash), they save for their own retirement, they don't join our military on its exciting escapades, and they educate their own children.
At some point, I fully expect to hear of government bureaucrats recommending that Amish children be whisked away from their families and redistributed to urban housing projects for a less "antisocial" upbringing.
After all, if the Amish worldview should spread, our entire welfare-warfare system would literally collapse.
snip
As Hans-Hermann Hoppe noted so trenchantly, democracy has led us down the primrose path to decadence, which in turn has provided continuous justifications for yet more statism. This system of decadence, however enticing and delectable it may sometimes be, is unsustainable. This cannot go on. It will ultimately end in bankruptcy, demographic implosion, or Road Warrior-style chaos.
Agreed
13
15
46.4% 53.6%This claim was inspired by
Similar claims
- 31-15 Trust is the basis of democracy.
- 3-6 Chuck Colson's speech on ethics at the Harvard University Business School scores some credibility points.(click link for text)
- 5-9 Democracy is only possible on a local or regional level
- 13-6 Modern medical care is only made possible thanks to government investing in public education and health care.
- 25-2 Industrialism is necessary for modern medicine to exist in a society.
Discussion (11)
Your brush, as always, is way too fucking broad. But I'll accept the fact that you stuck the word "federal" in there to pervert Rachel's meaning and vote with what she said rather than what you said.
D'A
Federal taxes are not necessary because:
1. it's not necessary to have a federal system you US centric dork.
2. you could pay for Government with google ads. Actually, no one's tried that yet, it would be fun I think.
Speaking of broad, "as always"? Nice self-parody, D'Archangel.
No, I did not "pervert Rachel's meaning." If you read her comment again, you will see that she specifically mentioned government funding for "clean water, roads, education," and public safety. Those items receive substantial federal funding.
Funding for Clean Water Passes in the House
WASHINGTON (March 9, 2007) — Three bills vital to protecting our nation's waters and ensuring healthy communities on the banks of U.S. rivers and lakes were considered by the U.S. House of Representatives this week, according to clean water policy experts at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
No Child Left Behind
The U.S. Department of Education (ED) is providing nearly $38 billion this year to states and school districts, primarily through formula-based grant programs, to improve elementary and secondary schools and meet the special needs of students. ED is providing about $2.5 billion to help strengthen teaching and learning in colleges and other postsecondary institutions and over $4 billion to support rehabilitation, adult education, research and development, statistics, and assessment. ED awards about $1.5 billion in contracts each year for goods and services necessary to carry out its mission.
You did pervert my meaning, actually.
I said you need government, not federal government. The fact that we do it federally was not my point.
And if a bunch of Amish people became severely disabled at the same time, their culture would fall in on itself. I bet they take advantage of the modern medical care that we have from doctors who use public educations (at least in part) and other public resources.
Claims inspired by this comment
I need a Government.Other people need a Government – even if they don’t think they do.
Modern medical care is only made possible thanks to government investing in public education and health care.
Unless you own a large amount of property, the majority of the taxes you pay will be federal. But if the distinction between "taxes" and "federal taxes" is really that important (and not just a deliberate distraction), I direct readers to the very first word of the description I offered at the top — adapted.
The issue here is not whether I "perverted" what Rachel wrote. The issue is whether large, centralized governance — a nanny state — is necessary to create an excellent society. I say it's actually subverting our ability to live as free people.
"And if a bunch of Amish people became severely disabled at the same time, their culture would fall in on itself."
And if a meteor hit Wall Street, the stock market would have a really bad day.
My point is that it can be done at a large-scale or a smaller-scale level. I made no statements about the size of the ideal government. I don't have much opinion on the size of the ideal government, and you seem to be arguing for more local government and arguing against "my stance" for a government over a larger group. But I didn't make that stance.
If states want to collect taxes and fund education, etc. I could be fine with that if the states do it well. It's all about how it's done, not how large the group is, at least to me.
Rachel, you just argued against your own agreement with the claim. Have I changed your mind? :-)
No, I never agreed. I always said it doesn't have to be federal. You added federal to what I said.
Yes, I modified what you wrote and created a claim of my own. I say that modification did not change the spirit of your original statement — based on evidence I've provided above. You disagree and insist that I "did pervert" your meaning. Fine. We've beaten that dead horse pretty well.
But the question is still whether one agrees with the claim as written above, not as one wishes it were written. And it certainly looks to me like you disagree with the claim.
Yes, as I've said, I disagree with the claim written above. I agreed because I took D'Arch's approach and translated what you wrote to what I said, because I thought you were trying to claim what I said. I obviously agree with what I said. I disagree with what you claimed.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave.