Post by DocTCWBR asks---
Why should I be forced to wear a seatbelt?
Because too many healthy young people choose not to purchase health insurance
(can't say I blame them, it costs far too much), and whereas seatbelts and
motorcycle helmets have been proven to cut down on severe injuries, your
failure to wear a seatbelt could cost ME thousands and thousands of dollars and
stress an already overburdened health care system.
When has my not wearing my seatbelt cost YOU anything? Even the costs you
talk about, when divided amongst us are very small. What about the fact that
you save on electricty, phone, sewer, cable, etc. b/c of living in society?
Freedom has a cost, and freedom not to wear seatbelts or motorcyle helmets
are worth the cost. I value freedom more than the few dollars it may cost.
Of course we make the decision not to purchase health insurance easy, b/c
people know they will get taken care w/o it.
Post by DocTCWPost by BR EagleWhy should I
be 'forced' to pay for government programs I don't believe, that could be
handled in the private sectors with donations from those who did?
This is the argument of childless couples and couples with kids already out of
school for not paying their school taxes. Everyone has to pay their school
taxes because the education of "OUR" children is in the National Interest and
Welfare. Lower middle class families cannot afford to send their children to
private schools at $400 a month per child.
Childless couples benefit from schools, especially good schools. However,
even as a public school teacher, free public education is not a great idea.
Kids and parents place no value (ok some) b/c it is free, but if they were
paying even $50 a month, they'd be investing in it and taking it more
seriously. This is why private schools outperform public schools.
Post by DocTCWPost by BR EagleWhy be
forced to participate in the ponzi scheme called social security?
I know SS has become "untouchable," but it IS a fantastic system that has made
it possible for senior citizens to SURVIVE. This is not medievil China where
older people were forced to live off their children. Letting workers who
currently pay SS taxes invest even 10% in the stock market would eventually gut
the system, and really goes against the very idea of current workers supporting
those retired. We need to fix it, not mess it up.
How did this nation survive for 150 years without it? It takes away
incentive to save (well now it doesn't, since most of us know not to count
on it when we reach retirement age). Why shouldn't my mom be MY
responsibility in her old age, instead of yours? Private charities would be
a much better way of 'helping' the poor and elderly. Eliminate social
security.
Post by DocTCWPost by BR EagleWhy should
you tax someone because they have been succesful, and tax them again when
they die?
Okay, let's just tax the UNSUCCESSFUL people. That makes a lot of sense. As for
inheritance taxes, there is room for reform, especially with family farms and
ranches (which are almost non-existent nowadays), but one of the tenets this
country was founded on was that nobility and prosperity had to be earned, not
passed down quite so easily from generation to generation like in Great
Britain. Besides, these taxes only affect the very richest in our society.
Understand incentives matter. If I work extra this week Uncle Sam is gonna
take more (maybe even a higher percentage of what I earn) out of my check.
Nah, I'll just stay home and watch tv. No incentive to work harder, so I
become less productive. We need to create a system where there is an
incentive for productive people to be more productive, and non productive
people to be productive.
If I work all my life and build whatever fortune, shouldn't I, not the
government, decide where that money goes? Again freedom trumps fear of
nobility.
Post by DocTCWPost by BR EagleWhy can't Democrats be TRUE classical liberals, like Thomas
Jefferson and modern day libertarians?
Democrats, myself included, love to claim Thomas Jefferson as the founder of
our party, but in truth, if he were alive today, he would surely be a
Republican (as much as it pains me to admit). He believed in minimalistic
government, state's rights, little to no taxes. Although he prosecuted the war
against the Barbary Coast states ("On the shores of Tripoli"), he did not
believe in a standing federal military. He was extremely conflicted over
slavery. I don't think I would like him very much.
Thank you. I think I'd like him. He also thought the Louisiana purchase
was unconstitutional, but did it anyway. Pragmatic. Thats good, real good
in my book.
Nice argument, no name calling. I like that.