: Hey, its not stealing when the government does it and you get something back in return:
then presumably if your local grocer robbed you and handed you carrots in return (whether you wanted them or not) that is also ok? You do get my point dont you?
: The question is matter of how these groups are favored (means) and what groups are favored (ends).
Hence it should be mediated in such a fashion as best reflects the nature of mankind, which is largely what these discussion are about, read my recent discussions with Red Deathy.
: Now this staement is a load of libertarian-Randian crap. Not only are there a lot more functions of government that have been recognized philosophically, socially, constitutionally, and histoprically
None of these things creates an automatic unquestionable legitimacy.
: but the very statement itself is untrue. There is not equal protection under the law now nor will there ever be in any libertarian paradice. Reason: the law and judicial system is biased in favor of the rich and slated against teh poor and minorities.
Precisely because laws and the legal infrastrure is deliberately vaige and open to interpretation, and the legal system corrupted by politicking.
: more and more disparities of wealth.
If the poorest person is getting richer, whilst the richest becomes even richer the both are better off than before. Thats one difference between capitalism and egalitarianism, which in principle would consider it 'fairer' if everyone was equally poor.
: or get enough of (education, vaccination, basic scientific research, infrastructure, health regualtion, environmental regulation, civil rights, human rights, healthcare, etc.).
All these things are considered untouchable, and unworkable in the private market - whilst having been monopolised by the state for many decades. Had the state monopolised travel insurance then this too would be an example of product the private market is supposedly unable to supply. Read my last comment in this post.
: What is there to alleviate? Suffering, poverty, need? These seem like perfectly acceptable things to alleviate and seem a lot more important than the fact that some poor little rich guy has to pay his taxes. There is no excuse for poverty in a developed nation, certainly not in a country like America.
There is, if you keep a group of people dependant on state aid then the state will not whither away but grow and grow. What seems more important to you than what you define as a "poor little rich guy" or a "wealthy large rich lady" has to pay is fine as an opinion, and you are free to help anyone you care for - but only with voluntary help if you wish a free country to exist.
: First off, taking 10% from everyone is a regressive tax system that is also procyclical i.e. reinforces businesses cycles. Flat taxes are stupid for everyone except the rich and a system like that is unfair. Besides taxes are given back in the form of services and goods that could NEVER be provided in a lassie faire system.
A flat tax is progressive, it drains more in volume from those who have more. That you consider it unfair is your opinion. What you would need to do now is to show exactly why some goods or services which people want to have would not arise without government intervention, and show why this intervention is of greater benefit than to not do so. That would Be interesting to scrutinize.