- Illegal wars of aggression that kill, maim, and displace millions of civilians.
- Illegal abduction and torture of people who have not been charged with any crime.
- Illegal surveillance of domestic communications.
THE CHALLENGE: Defend this system.
HINT: Offering "you're free to vote for people who will change these policies, or to run for office yourself" as a defense is the equivalent of saying "these policies are fine with me as long as a slim majority of the voting population supports candidates who say it is ok for the state to lock you in a cage for refusing to fund its illegal and immoral activities."
7 comments:
If you pay taxes in the U.S., you've made, proportionally, far more contributions to the social safety net, however poorly managed, than anything else. 2/3 of the annual federal budget goes to social programs. Give us a practical alternative to democracy and the social contract therein for a nation of 300 million people and then you'd have something to talk about.
"If you pay taxes in the U.S., you've made, proportionally, far more contributions to the social safety net, however poorly managed, than anything else. 2/3 of the annual federal budget goes to social programs."
Are you saying that an organization that uses force to take money from people, is acceptable to you as long as they use a majority of the funds in ways that you assess to be in the interests of the people from whom the money is forcibly taken?
"Give us a practical alternative to democracy and the social contract therein for a nation of 300 million people and then you'd have something to talk about."
Ah, practicality! Is it not practical to suggest that financial contributions to international war crimes should be voluntary, not coerced?
And I'm not big on nations of 300 million people either. Is that worth talking about?
Well when you present a challenge so narrowly constructed as to preempt any real discussion it doesn't surprise me nobody bothered to comment. I don't mean to criticize but it's an incredibly complex multidimensional issue and I can't imagine a fruitful discussion evolving from the way you framed it.
what is complex about it? government steals your money to pay for its crimes.
First, who says it's my money anyway? Most of the money I make wouldn't be available to be made were it not for the facilitation of the government by redistribution of resources.
Second, it's inherently complex because those with means should provide more to the social safety net than those who do not and the governement is the chief facilitator in that respect; this is complicated by dubious or worse actions by the same government in foreign countries. The line you draw is too sharp, it's too simplistic.
It seems like you're doing a lot of handwaving to avoid my point. Social safety nets and progressive taxation and whatnot aren't relevant to the point.
The part about it being "my" money or not is an interesting one though, and I'll get to it soon.
A key point still remains though that our system is in no way founded in consent of the governed. I don't give my consent to be governed by these people, and I don't consent to them using my resources (if we can call them that) to their evil ends. I have no way to withdraw consent, short of fleeing the country or disappearing off the grid.
Post a Comment