The U.S. Department of Justice should draft a contract for every American who opposes "big government" and wishes to cut it down and have their taxes slashed. The contract should stipulate that those who sign it will have to pay only a third of the regular tax rate (to cover the costs of our military and homeland security). However, in exchange they will not be entitled to any government services.
They will not be able to obtain passports, enter public parks, or use the highway system paid for by the federal government. They will all go on the no-fly list because they have not paid for the air control system. They will have to take their children out of public schools. Above all, if they grow ill, they will have to pay the doctors a fee that will help cover the costs of training these physicians which is now largely covered by the federal government. If they are hospitalized, they will have to pay their share of the building costs, also often largely covered by the federal government, including of the so called "private" hospitals.
The contract will of course have to be much longer. In effect, I suspect that it will extend to at least 20 single-spaced pages. However, you get the point. We shall never be able to gain a hearing from the millions who have been brainwashed by the libertarian nonsense and its laissez-faire conservative accompaniments until we find a dramatic way to drive home the point that although there is great room -- in effect, urgent need -- to reform our government, nobody really wants to live without most of the services it does provide. And if a bunch of libertarians want to sign the contract and move to some mountaintop and take care of each other, so be it. Just remind them not to call 911 in an emergency.
Follow Amitai Etzioni on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AmitaiEtzioni
I have lived and worked in a number of different countries. I have also started 3 companies in the States and next year will launch a fourth in Canada. Stop crying about taxes and start working to change your country's priorities. By the way, how's that 'trickle down' working out for you?
Years ago the head of Sony wrote a book and noted that Americans were spoiled and cry babies. He was correct. You been on the top of the pile for so long..........welcome to the new world order.
Abuse by Wealth and Privileged is a plague on the United States, and the powerful invented Libertarianism to manipulate those under them to fight against their interests... and mine, which is why I absolutely hate them: They talk about liberty, all the while eroding mine.
I agree with your post, but I stand by my position that Americans are not overly taxed. It might feel like it ,but unless you have experinced life outside the States you haven't had to deal with severe taxes. Try Scandinavia, ouch, but great place to live.
The real problem is not the taxes , it's what you do with them. America and Americans are the most wasteful nation and people on earth, but then it is only my opinion.
It's the Robin Hood fallacy. Robin Hood did rob the rich to give to the poor, but in his day "the rich" were also "the government".
If the airwaves and congress were full of trout007's i doubt you would hear a peep from non-conservatives...but my god...isn't it time to flush that garbage into the sewer where it belongs?
Yes, the government needs reform. We need the rich and powerful to chip in. Yes, we need to reduce corruption. Yes the poor and middle class pay inproportionally large percentages in taxes. Yes our foreign policy is out of wack.
But what does that have to do with those "who opposes 'big government' and wishes to cut it down and have their taxes slashed?"
Basically, the powerful, the wealthy, have taken over the government while the rest of us were complacent. Libertarians advocate NOT fighting for control of it, but rather abandoning it... to the ones who are abusing it. That, my friend, has a direct impact on MY liberties.
Got a friend of mine who applied for Social securty, theyripped him off and didnt care about him. He was in and out of homelessness, they tacked on an abusive payee when he was capable of paying on his own, took a year to undo that and get his life back, SSA witheld is retroactive, kept him from getting food stamps and housing aid, kicked him around he was even thrown out and banned from the office when he complained about how they mistreated him. THAT IS WHY WE MUST NEVER TRUST THE GOVERNMENT! THAT PROVES WE CANT DEPEND ON IT.
WE need to put private philantropies churches and synagogues back in charge and get rid of this useless crap.THe people who support this have never been on welfare before like I have and dont understand that it is making more problems than solve.
So the question is this: when you look at a situation, the question is "is force an appropriate solution to this problem?" Less conceptually, "if this problem was happening on my block, would I feel okay about shooting one of my neighbors to convince all my other neighbors to fix this problem?" If the answer is "yes", as it sometimes will be, then government is the appropriate tool.
If the answer is "no", then government is not the right tool. The EPA and FDA contain arguably force appropriate functions, as do the FBI and SEC. The author mentions passports. That's silly. We already pay for passports. Maybe we need to pay more, but they certainly are not free now.
Please list them.
Tax elimination on working class stimulates the economy naturally and cutting the defense budget would mean cold turkey withdrawl from for-profit war.
That right there would have kept us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, or at least kept us out of debt for it.
Yeah, I get it.
Pay a toll for every street you drive down.
When you buy a drug, pay the FDA for screening it.
When your house is on fire, I'm sure the Fire Dept will accept cash, debit or credit card (no checks -they could bounce.)
And police protection? Start your own private militia.
Regular readers of comments are probably getting tired of my writing this, but the Right wing screams about its "Rights", but has no consideration of anyone else's rights. And NO talk about the RESPONSIBILITIES of citizenship.
Wait I thought we were free. Wouldn't it mean I could take whatever drug I wanted without FDA approval?
I think funding Fire and Police Departments is perfectly reasonable through local taxes but if it was private it would be like AAA. You pay a yearly membership for coverage.
Of course, if you were too poor to buy their service, everyone stood around and watched your house burn down.
"Wouldn't" is the important thing.
Large scale, expensive research with no guarantee of economic usefulness just isn't engaged in by the private sector.
People grouse about government expenditures on space exploration and pure research. And then they never acknowledge that the new technology - that is, yes, developed by engineers often working in the private sector, but only with new information obtained by research scientists - that may drive economic growth owes anything to that initial research.
If the world's physicists got together and found a way to fund themselves and then patented all their discoveries, the world economy would be stifled for decades.
The issue with libertarians is that they can't admit public and private can work together or that different things are appropriate to each; that the public is better at somethings, and private is better at others.
I'm happy to pay into the pot for essential services like public safety, utilities, k-12 education, etc, and pitch in for those who CANNOT help themselves (severely handicapped persons, orphaned children)... but I think our concept of 'safety net' has run a bit out of control in many cases an is being used as a mode of daily living. Enabling people to not take care of themselves and their children is a poor policy IMO.
I think sysadmin12439's phrase of "all-or-nothing argument" is an appropriate assessment of this article. How about we don't characterize every viewpoint as the extreme.
I can take your list and give my opinions on them.
public safety - agree
utilities - ones that are naturally monopolistic I agree
k-12 education - I would like public funding where the parents can choose the school
Pitch in for those who CANNOT help themselves (severely handicapped persons, orphaned children)
Agree 100% and I think the current level of funding for this is too low because of abuse by those that choose not to work.
Enabling people to not take care of themselves and their children is a poor policy IMO. Agree as well. I think parents that let their kids stay with them until they are 30 if they are capable of working are guilty of child (they still act like one) abuse. The best thing my parents ever did was tell me after college that I needed to get my own place. It sucked and I bitched about it but that struggle made me appreciate everything I had to earn.
And you're right, we like to take a single person and make them the 'heart' of a movement. I don't think Sarah Palin represents anyone else but Sarah Palin, and I know plenty of liberals who would rather not be considered to have identical viewpoints to President Obama.
Considering how minuscule the numbers of capable people collecting benefits must be, it's really just a red herring.