This Has Never Made Sense To Me

[ziggy_encaoua]

Here’s something which has never made sense to me, why is it those who use public services the least have to pay the most for it?

Could somebody explain this nutty bullshit?

Its like saying I should pay for the upbringing of somebody else’s children even though their children have nothing to do with me.

[Morpheus]

Here’s something which has never made sense to me, why is it those who use public services the least have to pay the most for it?

Could somebody explain this nutty bullshit?

Its like saying I should pay for the upbringing of somebody else’s children even though their children have nothing to do with me.

Don't look for logic in collectivism...you won't find any. It's just gangsters with shiny badges and fancy titles.

[mikehz]

Politicians cater to groups. To each, they promise to give the group something for free, which will be paid for by some other group. This form of vote buying works like a charm.

[markuzick]

Here’s something which has never made sense to me, why is it those who use public services the least have to pay the most for it?

Could somebody explain this nutty bullshit?

Its like saying I should pay for the upbringing of somebody else’s children even though their children have nothing to do with me.

Given a social system that is based non-voluntary participation (slavery), there's nothing nutty or mysterious about this result.

Those who are motivated to lobby or vote for public services are the ones who will benefit the most from them. If they actually had to pay in proportion to their use of them, they'd find it much less costly to get higher quality services from the private sector. People will only ask for public services if they think someone else will foot the bill.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Here’s something which has never made sense to me, why is it those who use public services the least have to pay the most for it?

Could somebody explain this nutty bullshit?

Its like saying I should pay for the upbringing of somebody else’s children even though their children have nothing to do with me.

You just described one of the biggest problems with socialism. Which is what that is and which is why it will NEVER, EVER work as well as the free market.

[markuzick]

Here’s something which has never made sense to me, why is it those who use public services the least have to pay the most for it?

Could somebody explain this nutty bullshit?

Its like saying I should pay for the upbringing of somebody else’s children even though their children have nothing to do with me.

You just described one of the biggest problems with socialism. Which is what that is and which is why it will NEVER, EVER work as well as the free market.

Not really true. Check what I posted just before your post.

It's more fundamentally a problem of democracy, socialism being one of democracy's negative consequences. The exploitation of the most productive members of society by the nonproductive takes place through the perverse incentives of democratic tyranny. As an economy becomes fully socialistic, the productive sector withers away and the burden for public services begins to fall upon the those who once were parasites and who now find themselves increasingly trapped and exploited as slaves in the system that they shortsightedly helped to make.

[Rillion]

Here’s something which has never made sense to me, why is it those who use public services the least have to pay the most for it?

Could somebody explain this nutty bullshit?

It's a simple concept-- those who have must provide for those who have not.  If you can afford something on your own, then you should kick in for people who can't afford it so that they can have it as well.  The government is not based on supply and demand. 

This is not to say that I agree with the concept, but it's not hard to understand.

[HomerJ]

The idea is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Naturally, those with the least ability are those with the most need, meaning reward is inversely related to what is earned.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Not really true. Check what I posted just before your post.

It's more fundamentally a problem of democracy, socialism being one of democracy's negative consequences. The exploitation of the most productive members of society by the nonproductive takes place through the perverse incentives of democratic tyranny. As an economy becomes fully socialistic, the productive sector withers away and the burden for public services begins to fall upon the those who once were parasites and who now find themselves increasingly trapped and exploited as slaves in the system that they shortsightedly helped to make.

Talk about splitting hairs big-time. Its a problem from both..were you just looking to argue about something when you posted this or what?

[markuzick]

Not really true. Check what I posted just before your post.

It's more fundamentally a problem of democracy, socialism being one of democracy's negative consequences. The exploitation of the most productive members of society by the nonproductive takes place through the perverse incentives of democratic tyranny. As an economy becomes fully socialistic, the productive sector withers away and the burden for public services begins to fall upon the those who once were parasites and who now find themselves increasingly trapped and exploited as slaves in the system that they shortsightedly helped to make.

Talk about splitting hairs big-time. Its a problem from both..were you just looking to argue about something when you posted this or what?

No. It's not a problem of both. I object to the notion that under socialism the neediest are somehow supported by those who have more, when in fact, it's just a slave system, where the slaves support the fat cats in power who, in effect, own them.

You reject socialism because it's slavery (good), but buy into the leftist propaganda that socialism is just a glorified welfare state, the purpose of which is to redistribute wealth from the producers to the needy, when in fact, it steals the labor of slave workers in order to enrich the power elite. The slaves only receive back in public services a small fraction of the value of their input.

Ziggy's observation only applies to the welfare state, not socialism.

You may think it's splitting hairs (After all, aren't both systems immoral?), but to me it's the difference between Canada and North Korea.

[NHArticleTen]

Not really true. Check what I posted just before your post.

It's more fundamentally a problem of democracy, socialism being one of democracy's negative consequences. The exploitation of the most productive members of society by the nonproductive takes place through the perverse incentives of democratic tyranny. As an economy becomes fully socialistic, the productive sector withers away and the burden for public services begins to fall upon the those who once were parasites and who now find themselves increasingly trapped and exploited as slaves in the system that they shortsightedly helped to make.

Talk about splitting hairs big-time. Its a problem from both..were you just looking to argue about something when you posted this or what?

No. It's not a problem of both. I object to the notion that under socialism the neediest are somehow supported by those who have more, when in fact, it's just a slave system, where the slaves support the fat cats in power who, in effect, own them.

You reject socialism because it's slavery (good), but buy into the leftist propaganda that socialism is just a glorified welfare state, the purpose of which is to redistribute wealth from the producers to the needy, when in fact, it steals the labor of slave workers in order to enrich the power elite. The slaves only receive back in public services a small fraction of the value of their input.

Ziggy's observation only applies to the welfare state, not socialism.

You may think it's splitting hairs (After all, aren't both systems immoral?), but to me it's the difference between Canada and North Korea.

And...
This is why we "lose" people...
Or never get "through" to them to begin with...
While it may be amusing to some to have a "battle" of words, terms, and definitions...

Honestly, I goes "over" most people's heads...completely...they just shut down...they just turn it "off"...
All these "words"...dictator, socialism, democracy, communism, etc. mean different things to different people(and nothing to others)...

We don't have time to teach them to understand all the pshyco-babble crap...that may make sense to you...but not others...
Perhaps they want to learn but they don't understand when it isn't distilled down to the most "primal" level...

And, of course, that is the Non-Aggression Principle and the Golden Rule...

(Note: some have objected to my inclusion of the golden rule because some people wouldn't object to, say, very rough and sometimes dangerous sex...or some other objectionable action...and I agree with that...However, MORE people have heard of the "golden rule" and so I believe that, if they recognize "golden rule" then they might look into "non-aggression principle" just to see what "that other thing" is about...I hope that makes sense to those who have objected in the past)

Here's something much simpler...

Is it right for your neighbor to steal your money or property at gunpoint?
Is it right for your neighbor to have others steal your money or property at gunpoint?
Is it right for your neighbor, or others, to steal from you if they first put on a funny hat that says "tax collector" or "police" or "governor"?

Would you do any of this to your neighbor?
Why?

If you wouldn't do this to your next door neighbor why would you do such things to the neighbor down the street? Across town? Upstate? In another state? Another country? Another planet? Another solar system? Another galaxy? Another universe?
Why?

And, now that I'm on a roll...lol.

What's up with this "national debt" bullshit!?!
I can see most people just think that the debt will be magically "pushed forward" and "carried" into the future...a future where they hope to not be held accountable for this debt...and I guess I might be able to see some logic in that "short-sidedness" or selfishness if you are anywhere near the "end of your time" here(i.e. near death)...

But what's up with having children and claiming you love them so much...but after raising them up you send them to war...you hand them a nation in debt up to their eyeballs!?!

I'm not sure there is logic for that...actually I'm quite sure there is NO logic in lovingly creating another person to send them off to murder or be murdered...how do you create and love someone you want to murder/be murdered!?!

Here's a clue...
If nobody "paid" taxes the government would "straighten up" or collapse...
If nobody "joined" the military...we wouldn't have troops stationed in 140 foreign countries around the globe...

If your neighbor didn't come to your house to rob you at gunpoint, you wouldn't have to kill them for their aggression/force/fraud...
Oh, what's that you say, your neighbor doesn't do that...
Not directly anyways...

They just get Johnny Jackboot and Mikey Mercenary to do it for them...
And John and Mike do live down the street, across town, upstate, in another state, in a foreign country...or, perhaps, from another planet..
Go figure...

Step out of the matrix today!

Research the Non-Aggression Principle and the Golden Rule Today!

You'll be glad you did!

Enjoy!

[Porcupine_in_MA]

No. It's not a problem of both. I object to the notion that under socialism the neediest are somehow supported by those who have more, when in fact, it's just a slave system, where the slaves support the fat cats in power who, in effect, own them.

You reject socialism because it's slavery (good), but buy into the leftist propaganda that socialism is just a glorified welfare state, the purpose of which is to redistribute wealth from the producers to the needy, when in fact, it steals the labor of slave workers in order to enrich the power elite. The slaves only receive back in public services a small fraction of the value of their input.

Ziggy's observation only applies to the welfare state, not socialism.

You may think it's splitting hairs (After all, aren't both systems immoral?), but to me it's the difference between Canada and North Korea.

Well I view the welfare state as a kind of socialism, so your definitions are definitely splitting hairs for me and not worth arguing over. They're both some kind of slave system, just in slightly different ways.

[markuzick]

No. It's not a problem of both. I object to the notion that under socialism the neediest are somehow supported by those who have more, when in fact, it's just a slave system, where the slaves support the fat cats in power who, in effect, own them.

You reject socialism because it's slavery (good), but buy into the leftist propaganda that socialism is just a glorified welfare state, the purpose of which is to redistribute wealth from the producers to the needy, when in fact, it steals the labor of slave workers in order to enrich the power elite. The slaves only receive back in public services a small fraction of the value of their input.

Ziggy's observation only applies to the welfare state, not socialism.

You may think it's splitting hairs (After all, aren't both systems immoral?), but to me it's the difference between Canada and North Korea.

Well I view the welfare state as a kind of socialism, so your definitions are definitely splitting hairs for me and not worth arguing over. They're both some kind of slave system, just in slightly different ways.

The typical modern state certainly uses elements of both socialism and public welfare, so it's understandable that the two are often confused with each other.

A state health clinic for the poor and lower middle class would be an example of the welfare state. In this example, Ziggy's observation is true.

A socialized health care system, that is compulsory for everyone, would be an example of socialism. In this example, Ziggy's observation is untrue, as everyone is a user of this public service.

To say that these two systems are both slightly different examples of slavery amounts to a gross exaggeration. The first example is theft, which is slavery in the abstract sense. The second example is nothing less than abject slavery. You may not notice any difference, but I, for one, prefer robbery to enslavement, if given no other alternatives.

[markuzick]

Not really true. Check what I posted just before your post.

It's more fundamentally a problem of democracy, socialism being one of democracy's negative consequences. The exploitation of the most productive members of society by the nonproductive takes place through the perverse incentives of democratic tyranny. As an economy becomes fully socialistic, the productive sector withers away and the burden for public services begins to fall upon the those who once were parasites and who now find themselves increasingly trapped and exploited as slaves in the system that they shortsightedly helped to make.

Talk about splitting hairs big-time. Its a problem from both..were you just looking to argue about something when you posted this or what?

No. It's not a problem of both. I object to the notion that under socialism the neediest are somehow supported by those who have more, when in fact, it's just a slave system, where the slaves support the fat cats in power who, in effect, own them.

You reject socialism because it's slavery (good), but buy into the leftist propaganda that socialism is just a glorified welfare state, the purpose of which is to redistribute wealth from the producers to the needy, when in fact, it steals the labor of slave workers in order to enrich the power elite. The slaves only receive back in public services a small fraction of the value of their input.

Ziggy's observation only applies to the welfare state, not socialism.

You may think it's splitting hairs (After all, aren't both systems immoral?), but to me it's the difference between Canada and North Korea.

And...
This is why we "lose" people...
Or never get "through" to them to begin with...
While it may be amusing to some to have a "battle" of words, terms, and definitions...

Honestly, I goes "over" most people's heads...completely...they just shut down...they just turn it "off"...
All these "words"...dictator, socialism, democracy, communism, etc. mean different things to different people(and nothing to others)...

We don't have time to teach them to understand all the pshyco-babble crap...that may make sense to you...but not others...
Perhaps they want to learn but they don't understand when it isn't distilled down to the most "primal" level...

And, of course, that is the Non-Aggression Principle and the Golden Rule...

(Note: some have objected to my inclusion of the golden rule because some people wouldn't object to, say, very rough and sometimes dangerous sex...or some other objectionable action...and I agree with that...However, MORE people have heard of the "golden rule" and so I believe that, if they recognize "golden rule" then they might look into "non-aggression principle" just to see what "that other thing" is about...I hope that makes sense to those who have objected in the past)

Here's something much simpler...

Is it right for your neighbor to steal your money or property at gunpoint?
Is it right for your neighbor to have others steal your money or property at gunpoint?
Is it right for your neighbor, or others, to steal from you if they first put on a funny hat that says "tax collector" or "police" or "governor"?

Would you do any of this to your neighbor?
Why?

If you wouldn't do this to your next door neighbor why would you do such things to the neighbor down the street? Across town? Upstate? In another state? Another country? Another planet? Another solar system? Another galaxy? Another universe?
Why?

And, now that I'm on a roll...lol.

What's up with this "national debt" bullshit!?!
I can see most people just think that the debt will be magically "pushed forward" and "carried" into the future...a future where they hope to not be held accountable for this debt...and I guess I might be able to see some logic in that "short-sidedness" or selfishness if you are anywhere near the "end of your time" here(i.e. near death)...

But what's up with having children and claiming you love them so much...but after raising them up you send them to war...you hand them a nation in debt up to their eyeballs!?!

I'm not sure there is logic for that...actually I'm quite sure there is NO logic in lovingly creating another person to send them off to murder or be murdered...how do you create and love someone you want to murder/be murdered!?!

Here's a clue...
If nobody "paid" taxes the government would "straighten up" or collapse...
If nobody "joined" the military...we wouldn't have troops stationed in 140 foreign countries around the globe...

If your neighbor didn't come to your house to rob you at gunpoint, you wouldn't have to kill them for their aggression/force/fraud...
Oh, what's that you say, your neighbor doesn't do that...
Not directly anyways...

They just get Johnny Jackboot and Mikey Mercenary to do it for them...
And John and Mike do live down the street, across town, upstate, in another state, in a foreign country...or, perhaps, from another planet..
Go figure...

Step out of the matrix today!

Research the Non-Aggression Principle and the Golden Rule Today!

You'll be glad you did!

Enjoy!

Knowledge of various examples of how the state operates and why the state always fails are relevant to an understanding of why the morality of natural rights is also a practical morality. Abstractions are fine, but they must be demonstrated and explained within the context of a complex world or most people will not attribute any credibility to them.

You can recite moral platitudes until your blue in the face, but unless you can convince people that your morality works and that the violation of your morality results in harm, people will consider you to be nothing more than a crazy, impractical Utopian.

Your approach is just a short cut to conclusions. That's fine as a way to get people interested, but you'd better know how to answer difficult questions, like Ziggy's, if you want to be taken seriously.

[Zhwazi]

The short answer:

The government lies. Their real goals are not their stated goals.

You can figure out the rest.