[TruePolitics]

I just have a question...What right do you have stealing my tax dollars and spending it on the military? I don't support the military. I want my tax dollars to go towards national healthcare. It's MY money, so what gives you the right to tell me how I should spend it?

[Atlas Guate]

It's all based on the Constitution and other laws of the land, in the case of the United States, the preamble of the Constitution clearly states:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and or Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Unites States of America

highlights are mine

Healthcare is not even mentioned in the Constitution.

But you can, by democratic means change that, as soon as you elect suficient representatives that share your views.

[Dan]

The primary purpose of government is to protect its citizens from aggression, both foreign and domestic. The military, along with the police and the judiciary, is the most important function of government.

[SpaciousBox]

I personally feel the above two posters have avoided the question, so will bite on the non-libertarian behalf. Firstly, I should note I am not a conservative; however feel the query deals with a far wider principle that is not bound by a single ideology alone.

I can only assume you’re tackling this question from the perspective of tax is robbery, or at the very least an idea that even if it is not innately evil it should be within your control. Although you are correct that it is your money, you are also living within a society that spends money on you, and on your children. Roads, healthcare, schools, benefits, housing, economic stimulus – you are where you are because of the state, so yes you do have to give some back. Many of us will not always use these features, it is true. I for one have had to have very little medical cover in my life. However, just like any good insurance, you are paying for others security whilst accepting that your own is secure, should you ever have need of it.

When it comes to the idea of directing your taxes, I am far more sympathetic. The issue however, is one of practicality, rather than the states responsibility to your ethics. If everyone felt like you, we would have no defence. What if people would rather not pay at all? I’m sure all of us would like less tax! Before you know it the system shuts down and bad things ensue. Libertarians will no doubt argue that the private sector can cover all this – however that is another question entirely, one which I’d imagine most of us consider concluded against them. So we end up with a simple all of nothing really: either we pay tax and let the elected officials deal with it based on their responsible knowledge, or we don’t pay tax at all. Anywhere in the middle simply leads to a breakdown of the system as funds will not be distributed by need.

As posted above; different parties represent different views. If you’re not happy, vote for it! That’s what a democracy is about. This said, we actually live in a Republic, where we elect officials to make decisions for us. This is a counter measure to the very obvious fact that many voters are stupid. We all accept it’s not a perfect system, I personally think I’m paying too much tax, but then again I would rather trust an elected, mandated government to spend my money in the manner they were elected, rather than pay no tax but live in a world without government, or the security and law it brings.

Well I’ve run out of things to say now... guess I should probably go back to work, huh?

[Meta777]

It's all based on the Constitution and other laws of the land, in the case of the United States, the preamble of the Constitution clearly states:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and or Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Unites States of America"

Healthcare is not even mentioned in the Constitution.

Sure it is. It's listed right there in your quote under general welfare.

[Atlas Guate]

Sure it is. It's listed right there in your quote under general welfare.

Point taken, however, while the term welfare may include the concept of a "state of health", it is not by any means limited to this, it also includes happiness, prosperity and even good fortune (a thing that is impossible for the government to provide). Welfare then is a generic term used to describe the abstract concept of well being.

Funding the military has a firm foundation in constitutional law, while healthcare has an indirect reference at best.

[Meta777]

" Sure it is. It's listed right there in your quote under general welfare."

Point taken, however, while the term welfare may include the concept of a "state of health", it is not by any means limited to this, it also includes happiness, prosperity and even good fortune (a thing that is impossible for the government to provide). Welfare then is a generic term used to describe the abstract concept of well being.

Funding the military has a firm foundation in constitutional law, while healthcare has an indirect reference at best.

Funding for the common defense is also fairly generic,
the common defense is not just limited to an army, but can include a navy, an air-force, as well as various other divisions and departments.

-Meta

[The Immortal Goon]

Point taken, however, while the term welfare may include the concept of a "state of health", it is not by any means limited to this, it also includes happiness, prosperity and even good fortune (a thing that is impossible for the government to provide). Welfare then is a generic term used to describe the abstract concept of well being.

Funding the military has a firm foundation in constitutional law, while healthcare has an indirect reference at best.

The framers argued that one of the advantages of the Constitution was the possibility of using federal taxes for the health of the citizenry:

The single article of ardent spirits, under federal regulation, might be made to furnish a considerable revenue. Upon a ratio to the importation into this State, the whole quantity imported into the United States may be estimated at four millions of gallons; which, at a shilling per gallon, would produce two hundred thousand pounds. That article would well bear this rate of duty; and if it should tend to diminish the consumption of it, such an effect would be equally favorable to the agriculture, to the economy, to the morals, and to the health of the society. There is, perhaps, nothing so much a subject of national extravagance as these spirits.

Naturally this isn't to say that they intended a national healthcare system as we think of it today; but on the same token, they had no intention of a standing army in peace time and would probably be horrified to know anything about our nukes. But society advances, and the intent is pretty clear in that the government can levy taxes for the sake of "the health of the society".

[Oxymoron]

just have a question...What right do you have stealing my tax dollars and spending it on the military? I don't support the military. I want my tax dollars to go towards national healthcare. It's MY money, so what gives you the right to tell me how I should spend it?


WELCOME TO THE DARK SIDE

[Rei Murasame]

In fact, by this logic you are then forced to rationalise the abolition of the state, if you take it to it's logical conclusion.

However, since they clearly you all no intention of abolishing it, it means that this whole argument is a front for something else which has not actually been explained. Namely that all this back-and-forth is just a mask of morality which is designed to frame certain policy choices which facilitate the desires of a group mostly consisting of financial and multinational companies.

[Daktoria]

Getting rid of a red square does not necessarily get rid of the color red.

It's really just that simple. On the other hand, you could also make the square blue.

Yes, market anarchy would be nice, but it won't necessarily solve the problem. The wrong attitude ruins everything.

Perhaps you should review your own blog post on endogenous growth theory?

[Rei Murasame]

I have no idea what you're saying there. You're going to have to try again in English.

[Daktoria]

Go on chat. I'll speakada English there.

No hablo aqui.

[Rei Murasame]

You're just trying to escape. Say it here rather than attempting to run to PoFo IRC. I'm not constantly in front of my laptop.

[Daktoria]

Escape from what?

[Atlas Guate]

Funding for the common defense is also fairly generic,
the common defense is not just limited to an army, but can include a navy, an air-force, as well as various other divisions and departments.

-Meta

Nothing generic here, all you do in mention different branches of the military.

Look, one of the fundamental reasons people choose to live in society and under (any form of) governmental rule is to provide for defense against enemies both internal and external, thus the need for both a military and a police force.

There is a very limited number of countries without a military, and most have some alternative for national defense, be it a “National Guard” or delegating defense to another friendly nation. Even Switzerland the model of “neutrality” has armed forces (and obligatory service too). Liechtenstein abolished it's army, but has provisions for it to be formed in case of war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... med_forces

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_military

[Meta777]

I'm not saying defense isn't important.
The Swish have the S-tank after-all.

-Meta

[SpecialOlympian]

First off, it's not stealing. And I can tell from your avatar that you're a hippy who likes that awful Warriors movie. Which, if you didn't know, is a retelling of the Odyssey. That's right, your favorite movie was written by the arch conservative Homer. Put that in your bong hole and light it up.

Second, the military exists to protect us from danger inside and outside the country. Which means that when you and your LSD addled friends finally get off your bean bags and start trying to "change" things there will be someone with a job and some jack boots ready to trample you into the gutter.

GOD BLESS AMERIC.

[TruePolitics]

I'm trying to make sense of what you just said but I can't.

I've never done LSD and I don't consider myself a hippie, although I have a lot of hippie friends.