How are your views and democracy compatible, my dear statist friends?

Okay, reading that libertarian thread I keep coming up with one problem.
How is any of what you say compatible with democracy?
You keep saying stuff like "we must all share costs". "The better off must pay more". Something about "universal good" or what not. It basically boils down to "you pay for more than you get".
How is that compatible with democracy? How can we say we're "equals" when we're obviously not?
Doesn't democracy demand that we're all equal?
Now, I know I'm not making this sound exactly as clever as I'd like it to sound but I'm sure you get the general idea - if some contribute more and get less, why are those who contribute less still as important, count still as much?

To me, that seems like one hell of a glaring contradiction.

The US is a REPUBLIC. Not a true democracy.

That doesn't answer the question, but it's fun to point out.

A Constitutional Republic, to be even more precise.

I know it, look at the price of oil.

And what are comics up to? 3 bucks? Used to be 60 cents when I was a kid. And most of 'em suck.

Candy bars are shrinking, rolls of paper towels, half gallon of ice cream isn't half gallon anymore, it's ridiculous.

A dollar doesn't go far? Fuck, it doesn't even go. Plops to the ground like a shot put thrown by an Ethiopian.

Oh, I have a whole thread on that at the back of my mind.
It involves Switzerland, the US, liberalism (the proper one) and the republic thingie. But I need to find the time first.

A real democracy?

Today, cell phones would be prohibited in the ekklesia, IMO!

^Define 'contributes less'. A nurse pays a lot less tax than a Premiership footballer, but I doubt any but the most rabid materialist would claim that the footballer contributes more to society than the nurse does.
You're making the mistake of thinking it's all about the euros...

Because 'being equals' and 'contributing' is not all about materialism? Because holding dear the idea of equality means factors like birth and unequal opportunity need to be compensated?

Ah, but then we are not equal. And that's exactly what I'm saying, now isn't it?

No. Nor does libertarianism.

Oh, and having said that, taxation and social programs don't mean you're paying more than you're getting.

Okay, remembered one more thing I mean to say (and seeing how I won't be able to reply for about 20 hours I think I'd better say it now before the thread dies ):

If we're assuming that some people "can't take care of themselves" - and honestly, that's what I'm seeing everywhere (handicapped people, not-so-intelligent people, single mothers, the list goes on forever...) - then how can we honestly expect those people to make good judgements? How can we let their votes count as much as the votes of the people who actually can take care of themselves? How can we let them make life harder (potentially) for those people?


Packard - how doesn't it?
Currently, I'm obviously paying much less (i.e. nothing) compared to what I'm getting (a more or less free university education). This only works because I'm expected to pay taxes here at some point. At that point I'll pay much more than what I'm getting (that's what all that redistrubtion stuff is about, isn't it?) [I'd also like to add that in the end I'd still have paid MUCH more than I'd have received]. "From each according to his ability to each according to his needs", is it not?

Black-white, on-off, one-zero.

Um, that's proper communism, something that's never existed on this planet, although Cuba probably comes the closest...

A person pays taxes and receives the services those taxes pay for. For instance, I pay taxes; and some of the things I receive are healthcare and social services for the poor, a good university system providing educated specialists and reserach in a vast variety of fields, and so forth.

What you mean is not "I'm not getting what I pay for!" What you mean is "I don't want what I'm buying!" And that's a very different thing.

I know I didn't buy healthcare and social services for the poor from the federal government.

Both are not compatable with a democratic republic. People need representation. Neither has it.

We wrote your name on the card so it looked like everyone pitched in on it.

Explain to me how you receive "healthcare and social services for the poor".

Equality means we have equality of opportunity, not necessarily equality of condition. However, many people, due to no fault of their own, do not have the same opportunities that someone else may have. For example. I am a brillian scientist (I know I know, self aggrandizement, but suffice to say I am good at what I do) but I would NEVER be able to get into college without government grants and student loans because my family is poor.

What government programs like the one you despise do is level the playing field, and if you were capable of looking beyond your own short term selfishness, you would realize that you benefit indirectly from this arrangement. Crime rates go down (because most crimes are either economically motivated, or are motivated by socio-economic-family conditions that cause psychological problems), talented people get the training they deserve but would otherwise not be able to get and help the entire society as a result.

Of course, that is all beside the point. Libertarianism is the viewpoint that is actually at odds with democracy, and in fact a stable organized society. This is true for one reason.

Social Contract. There are some forms of property that are absolute. For example. You belong to you (and it is this notion of property, that you own yourself from which many argue all other rights are logically derived.) Other forms of property are a little bit less clear cut. The notion that you own your house, or the land you live on for example are the products of socio-economics. If you lived in a hunter-gatherer society where resources are spread thin, the notion that you own anything but yourself in any concrete way would be considered absurd. Everything in these situations is a vital necessity for the entire community and are thus common property.

In any society, no matter how complex, it is necessary that their exist a common pool of resources in order to provide for the stability and sustainable future growth of said society. The stability part is handled by police and armies, or in poor primitive societies by a warrior cast, some sort of tribal authority system, etc. Sustainable future growth is what social programs are. In times past this was solved through extra-governmental means. Tribal societies will often have a cast called "big men" they do not have any political or spiritual power, but everyone in the community was charged with providing them with a certain amount of their resources which he would then use to provide for those who didnt fare so well. In medieval society, the church provided a SHITLOAD of social services.

The difference between these societies and now is that they were small. The medieval church was huge and powerful, but the individual parish was not. However, the local priest did know EVERYONE and if Mr. Miller didnt tithe that week (the proceeds of which go toward that church providing those services) he could enforce the social contract through social means and "force" Mr. Miller to tithe.

Society is too large now for that to work. There are too many churches and not everyone attends. A community now is too large for everyone to keep tabs on everyone else to make sure they are contributing "voluntarily". This is because our community size is larger than we evolved to be able to handle. There is a finite number of individuals who you can actually interact with and treat as individual human beings about whom you personally care. There is no way other than government to make sure everyone contributes to that common pool of resources. So, by social construct, via democracy in its purest form, we have decided that you have certain moral obligations toward society, and we have charged governments to making sure you meet them. Society decides what those obligations are.

You have to remember that morality does not exist to benefit the individual. Social animals cannot exist as egoists. Social mammals function via reciprocal altruism. And that reciprocity must be enforced for the social system to function. Morality is a way of enforcing this interlocking web of obligations. And so are governments.

By not being infected by people who couldn't afford to get medical treatment in the US...? By not being mugged by those who have been given tax money to buy food...?
I've said before, a lot of what is seen as 'gub'mint theft' around here, I prefer to see as enlightened self-interest...

Ding, ding, ding, Ladeez and gennulmen, we have a winnah!

I've said countless times before, the main reason I've been a top-rate taxpayer for nearly 20 years is that the state invested in my post-18 education. And the amount I pay in tax each month is more than a term's grant when I was a student. Without those grants, I would never have climbed as far as I have.
And I have no intention of pulling the ladder up after me.

All true, and very pertinent, and I keep saying so myself. But still on top or even before any of that, I also pay for healthcare for the poor for its own sake, and I do get what I pay for.

What?
That's not how a winner talks!
You got yours, fuck everyone else!

Democracy is antithecial to this "libertarianism" that the far right speak of.
You're either all equal and exert an equal influence according to your vote, or you're not and you exert an influence proportional to the size of your wallet.

That's pretty wrong. It existed in my family for a while, while we lived on earth, and quite a bit more successfully than in Cuva. The further away from your family you get, however, the more resentment you'll accumulate when the majority insists that you pay for somebody else's lunch.

And, if Cuba is the example of the ideal of an alternative to our more mercenary systems, then .

It wasn't "no taxation." It wasn't "equal taxation." It was "no taxation without representation" and in that regard we are all equal.

No we're not. We have no real representation. The richest pay the most taxes but they get the msot tax breaks and none of us can say where our money goes. And if we refuse we go to jail.

How is that reprentation?

I have no idea what you're even trying to say.

If you have a problem with the current tax system I suggest you talk to your representative. Complaining anonymously on a message board isn't going to get much done.

I'll contribute my signature to the current people's initiative that's going to legalise degressive taxes in Switzerland, thank you very much.
Ignoring that, I'd say your post was pretty fucking stupid but I'm sure you'll figure that one out yourself.