How Do You Convince Americans To Accept LESS From the Govt.?

All the debate over federal health insurance, Medicare fixes, the deficit and all that comes down to one big thing:

In order to get the finances of the United States back in order, the American people one way or the other are going to have to accept LESS from the federal govt. that they have been promised or led to believe they are entitled to.

So how does a person who aspires to be a national leader convince Americans to accept less.

Have anyone receiving such benefits eat a ghost pepper every time they get a check.

Start with those "persons" known as corporations.

Gunfire.

No problem with that.

If you eliminate corporate income tax then I have no problems eliminating any benefits corporations receive.

Now, that probably takes care of about 1% of the long term problem.

The right to exist is a benefit. That alone dictates that they should pay tax and do whatever else is required of them.

Anyway, you're looking at this from the wrong perspective. What is needed is not "a leader" to coax the public into doing something they'd rather not, but for the public to participate in policy to the extent that they can arrive at the conclusion that such things are needed (if indeed they are) and then decide themselves how best to deal with them.

The word "convince" frames it in entirely the wrong terms. I don't need to "convince" you to stop taking free shit you didn't earn. I just need to stop offering it.

Bingo.

Spoken like a true slavemaster.

The right to exist is either a right or a benefit. It cannot be both. It's either something you have innately, or something you have at the allowance of someone else.

Since corporations are merely free associations of free individuals, I see no reason why they would have any less right to exist than, say, a labor union or a political party.

The Mafia is also a free association of free individuals. So is any street gang.

Obviously you're not someone who has ever dealt with the Mafia or street gangs......

Yes, and if they did not tread on the rights of others, they would merely be Italian-American Associations and Urban Youth Basketball Leagues. But the mafia and street gangs are a little tiny bit more than simple free associations, aren't they?

Uh, context please?

Clearly he was talking about the right of a corporation to exist.

Next time come up with an argument that doesn't rely on illiteracy.

Maybe, if so much of the private sector of this country didn't buy into the "Walmart Philosophy" such as treating workers like so much chattel, ("Well, we made record profits this year, time to downsize!"), and the belief that food, shelter, and healthcare are the exact same things as HiDef TVs and Corvettes--trifles people can live without--we have the government stepping in and playing nanny. These government programs and this new legislation (rightly or wrongly) are ultimately the fault of that "fuck you, I've got mine" attitude made especially popular in the 1980s onward. The legacy of Ronald Reagan and subsequently Bill Clinton pretty much created Obamacare. It's called the "Law of Unintended Consequences". I think it's fair to say that Social Darwinism and democracy don't mix.

I guess the freedom of association right wasn't discussed during your "Juggling for Morons 101" course.

What did you do with the rest of your Pell Grant after you used the fifty bucks to pay for tuition, anyway?

How do you convince Americans to accept less from the government?

You elect officials with the courage to deny a program for every problem.

Fixed that for you.

No, they are the fault of that "the world owes me a living" mentality, taken only as far as necessary to establish symbolism for political gain.

Look who's talking.

A corporation is free people acting together. To say that people have no right to assemble freely for some common purpose is to deny an important aspect of human freedom.

While I deny individuals GAIN any rights by assembling, I'd certainly deny that they LOSE any by doing so.

Doesn't everyone take whatever is freely offered of them?

If you wanted to start somewhere, you might stop recording those items that would lessen your taxes on your tax return, and send a letter to your representatives telling them you did so and why--you're sick of the government giving so much away. Something tells me that would be awfully hard for people to do, however.

I've heard before that people who are generally against government-sponsored support for people donate more to charities because they they that's a better method of distribution. I guess my question would be, if the USA and the Salvation Army both want to support crack whores, why is giving your money through the Salvation Army any better than paying more on your taxes? (I'm asking this in all seriousness, I'd like to know what people think.)

No, I don't. It is VERY rare that anything is actually "free," in my experience. I'm even reluctant to accept generosity from close friends and family.

Speaking only for myself, choice is what makes that option better. I decide to participate, I decide my level of participation, and I decide which charity to fund.

Corporations are not merely free associations of free individuals, as you are well aware. They are distinct legal personhoods conferred upon said associations of individuals by the state.

Absolutely not. Few material things are ever truly free; there usually a pricetag or some strings attached.

With "free stuff from the gub'mint" the price is dependence. And that's deadly to a republic such as ours. Once you become dependent on some service the government offers, you become a supporter of whomever keeps that service coming, regardless of whether it's good for the country or not.

I know I risk a Godwin tag here, but the question is often asked: why did so many average, decent German people support the Nazi party? The answer, according to Gotz Aly, a German journalist who studied the question, was that the Nazi party basically gave people 'free stuff,' not only through an expanded welfare state, but also through the distribution of war booty and plundered wealth. People WILL sell their loyalty if they're allowed to...

.....and from there we leap directly into Crazy Canyon and assert that this legal status is sufficient excuse to do whatever the fuck we want to them in the name of "social equality" or other such bullshit.

If that were not so, you lot wouldn't be so determined to ignore that legal status and pretend they're just "free associations" now, would you?

It's a free trade, which you should like. They get to create their corporations in return for satisfying conditions set by those who allow them to. If they don't like it, they're free to remain unincorporated. And if we don't like the fact that that might make them choose not to bother, we're free to change our conditions in order to persuade them.

So? How does that change anything I said?

The freedom of association exists prior to government. That the state recognizes the legal entity called a corporation does not give the state the rightful authority to abolish them. Associations do not require government permission.

And the only rightful regulations a corporation to which a corporation should be uniquely subject are those that ensure that it is managed responsibly.

Street gangs, no.

I'm sure you've had realms of experience with both. Feel free to share.

The state doesn't just "recognise" an association of individuals. It confers a seperate legal personhood on them. If it refused to do so, that would not constitute abolishing the association, which would still exist sans incorporation.
You can't not understand this distinction.

A semantical distinction. You could also say the the individuals assert certain aspects of "personhood" for their corporations, and the state recognizes it as an element of contract law.

I don't deny their legal status. That's merely a formal recognition of the right of people to associate for a given purpose (producing more valuable goods and services than any single individual could do on his own). Until such time as you can make corporations illegal, the weight of the law is on my side.

But it isn't a free trade. You say immediately thereafter...

...that's it's YOUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY. But, then, I wouldn't expect a leftist to allow any kind of freedom other than the kind he thinks best.

I'm glad the world doesn't work the way you want it to, RickDeckard.