A Case for he Federal Government

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I noticed that you said "complete." Yes, there are options. I have said before that I agree that there is a choice, but that choice exists by a matter of degrees. How many countries in this very big world do there have to be to consitute a sufficient choice? 200? 2,000? 10? 2?

[/ QUOTE ]

Two hundred sounds pretty reasonable to me. Explain to me any other conceivable decision where, if you have TWO HUNDRED choices, you won't have a sufficient level of choice. Ice cream flavors? Car color? Window curtain floral pattern? I find it wholly uncompelling to claim the social contract fails merely because actors only have 200 choices and not 10000.

[ QUOTE ]
If a group of nations decides to consolidate into a Fedation, doesn't that mean that choice has been removed? Isn't that bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose it could be bad. I left my tin-foil hat at home today, but last I checked, the NWO and their over-arching and all-encompassing state doesn't exist yet.

Yes, of course, if every nation on the planet formed a federation, leaving you with no choice, then such a federation would be of questionable legitimacy. Since this is merely a hypothetical, I'm not sure what the application is to the observable world is. I surely see the application to the creation of the federal government, but (as I mention below), I was focusing on one of your comments.

[ QUOTE ]
The question at hand is is state sovereignty preferable to a big federal government.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose the question you pose here is related to the OP, but I was referring specifically to this:

"I don't recall ever signing an agreement saying that I want to pay taxes for government services."

[ QUOTE ]
Again:

Which would you prefer:

1) a large collection of individual restaurants catering to different interests that don't act violently toward one another.

2) a nationwide government mandate requiring that all restaurants be McDonalds franchises.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the question pertains merely to restaurants, surely I would prefer the former.


And, lastly...a very serious question related to dumbfuckery: don't you go to Rutgers? [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it wholly uncompelling to claim the social contract fails merely because actors only have 200 choices and not 10000.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're looking at things in terms of black and white. This is not a matter of pass/fail, it's a matter of degrees. I've said that. My point was that more choice is good.

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose it could be bad. I left my tin-foil hat at home today, but last I checked, the NWO and their over-arching and all-encompassing state doesn't exist yet. Yes, of course, if every nation on the planet formed a federation, leaving you with no choice, then such a federation would be of questionable legitimacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

haha, even you see the problem [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
If the question pertains merely to restaurants, surely I would prefer the former.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, now what if it refers to governments? Americans have divided tastes. Why is it not preferable to, similarly, have the country divided into different areas so that they can support different forms of government? Wouldn't it be better if the libertarians lived under minarchy, the socialists under egalitarianism, the Republicans under good ol' fashioned family values, and the Democrats under god-knows-what? Why is that not better than everyone forcing everyone else to live under the same weird mix of this stuff?

[ QUOTE ]
And, lastly...a very serious question related to dumbfuckery: don't you go to Rutgers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, I went, my parents paid for it, it was easy, I had a great time, and got just as good an education there as I would anywhere else.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Meh. I don't know why you started this thread if you choose to end it like this. You might as well have said "The federal government stinks, and here's my past OPs to prove it! End thread."

Oh well.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you wanted a main principle to the reason that AC society could work, I'd have to say it's this

If you live in free market capitalism, anything demanded by the people will be provided, as long as someone can profit from providing it. Social sercurity, hospitals, roads, even sercurity can and would be provided, because there is a demand for it, a way to provide it, and there is no governmental restriction from providing it.

[..........]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't recall ever signing an agreement saying that I want to pay taxes for government services.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you've chosen to derive your income within the boundaries of a states' territory and economy, then you have voluntarily entered into a binding agreement. You have only your parents to blame for bringing you into existance within those boundaries, and are now free to either go unemployed or leave altogether.

Yes, I understand the "false dichotomy" aspect of the above statement, as there is always room for change. However the complete abolishment of taxes is in no way a viable option, as certain institutions that are necessary for the survival and maintenece of the "whole", simply can not be adequately funded via the free market and individual consumption, regardless of there being any specific institution(s) that are labled unsatisfactory by certain factions of that whole.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If franchisees wanted to leech of the golden arches but not pony up, they would be violently coerced as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, because the franchisees would be leeching off of the intellectual property. What if the franchisees don't want to be a part of McDonalds anymore, and wold rather be their own restaurant? What if I some of us don't want to blow our money on medicare, social security, the military, the FDA and FEMA, and want to declare a jurisdiction sovereign of those "services"? McDonalds would allow the analog of that...

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you realy think that there aren't certain aspects of what the franchisee recieves in return for his fees that he would rather do without, or pursue himself for a better price, etc.?

His buddy knows a guy who can get him a similar deep-fryer for a much better price than the one he's mandated to use. Or that he feels he shouldn't have to pay for advertising because he is perfectly situated in an area where business brings itself.

Obviously he decides he must accept the "bad with the good" in this situation, because overall it is a good business decision.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Either pay up or leave, here's my big stick.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. You have established that there is, and should be, an element of choice. Choice is good. More choice is better.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to see how that example differs from the citizen/government situation. I am still not convinced that there isn't a choice involved regarding whether or not to work and play within a state.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But both franchisees and the vast majority of citizens understand that it's entirely necessary and worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a pretty stark contrast from what you originally said in this thread, which was:

[ QUOTE ]
I got nuthin'... Really though, is it at all possible that we are just slaves and have no say in the matter whatsoever? That our freedom to choose is just an illusion...that democracy is a sham...that they could give a rat's ars whether or not we need them...

Just a thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

1."I got nothin'" - sarcasm. Please ignore.

2. The other comment does not however, take away from the fact that within those confines, we are still, to some degree "allowed" to make what we perceive as "choices", and that there are obviously certain situations in the franchise/franchisee relationship that are confining as well, where the head of the franchise could give a rats' ars about a specific idea or liberty brought forth by the franchisee.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't say that others aren't choosing to pay taxes for what they're recieving in return.


[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I don't want the services of social security, medicare or medicaid. I would very much like to stop paying for them. Can I "choose" to stop paying for them? No. I pay for them because if I don't I will go to jail and my assets will be seized. That is like claiming that a mugger asking you at gunpoint to give you his wallet is offering you a "choice," you can either give him the wallet or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, there are certain aspects of the contract that the franchisee would rather not contribute to as well, but he does so because it is better than the alternative. That annoying mugger anology is asinine because you are choosing to operate within the property belonging to the government. Nobody is getting mugged. It is theirs. They own it and they charge a fee. You are free to go find yourself your own little piece of land that does not already have a rightful owner. You want to debate whether or not the government does in fact own that property? Take it up with them, their insurers, and the firms they hire.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Meh. I don't know why you started this thread if you choose to end it like this. You might as well have said "The federal government stinks, and here's my past OPs to prove it! End thread."

Oh well.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you wanted a main principle to the reason that AC society could work, I'd have to say it's this

If you live in free market capitalism, anything demanded by the people will be provided, as long as someone can profit from providing it. Social sercurity, hospitals, roads, even sercurity can and would be provided, because there is a demand for it, a way to provide it, and there is no governmental restriction from providing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll have a problem convincing me (or any other benefits expert) that "social security" or more generally any retirement benefits would be provided in an AC society.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Meh. I don't know why you started this thread if you choose to end it like this. You might as well have said "The federal government stinks, and here's my past OPs to prove it! End thread."

Oh well.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you wanted a main principle to the reason that AC society could work, I'd have to say it's this

If you live in free market capitalism, anything demanded by the people will be provided, as long as someone can profit from providing it. Social sercurity, hospitals, roads, even sercurity can and would be provided, because there is a demand for it, a way to provide it, and there is no governmental restriction from providing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll have a problem convincing me (or any other benefits expert) that "social security" or more generally any retirement benefits would be provided in an AC society.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are claiming that in a free market people cannot save and invest for their retirement? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Meh. I don't know why you started this thread if you choose to end it like this. You might as well have said "The federal government stinks, and here's my past OPs to prove it! End thread."

Oh well.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you wanted a main principle to the reason that AC society could work, I'd have to say it's this

If you live in free market capitalism, anything demanded by the people will be provided, as long as someone can profit from providing it. Social sercurity, hospitals, roads, even sercurity can and would be provided, because there is a demand for it, a way to provide it, and there is no governmental restriction from providing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll have a problem convincing me (or any other benefits expert) that "social security" or more generally any retirement benefits would be provided in an AC society.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are claiming that in a free market people cannot save and invest for their retirement? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

They dont now and there are all kinds of incentives to do so, and since providing it hasn't proven profitable business cant be counted on to provide it, especially with the demographics of the next 20-30 years. You wind up in even worse shape than the pre-Social Security days because longevity is up but retirement age has stayed pretty steady, so there is greater risk of an huge cadre of broke and homeless septe octo and nanogenarians. (Which conjures up images of Malcolm McDowell "singing in the rain" kicking the crap out of some youngster with a cane from his wheelchair).

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
They dont now

[/ QUOTE ].

They dont?

wiki
wiki

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They dont now

[/ QUOTE ].

They dont?

wiki
wiki

[/ QUOTE ]

correct...they dont. The savings rate in the US, even taking into account IRAs and 401(k)s is one of the lowest in the world. Some even argue that the effective savings rate in the US is zero or negative.

The reason for the existence of IRAs and 401(k)s is the tax code to start with. Take away the government and the tax incentives and you have even less savings.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They dont now

[/ QUOTE ].

They dont?

wiki
wiki

[/ QUOTE ]

correct...they dont. The savings rate in the US, even taking into account IRAs and 401(k)s is one of the lowest in the world. Some even argue that the effective savings rate in the US is zero or negative.

The reason for the existence of IRAs and 401(k)s is the tax code to start with. Take away the government and the tax incentives and you have even less savings.

[/ QUOTE ]
Could it be that people consume more than they save now partly because of government? Doesn't inflation incentivize consuming things now as opposed to saving?