|
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'd love to think of it as a business, but in order to do so it would have to no longer receive tax revenue. The key difference between business and government is that business revenues do not come by mandates. This one small change makes a world of operational difference.
Not true. Landlords collect rent when you live on their property, on their land. The government receives taxes when you live on their property, on their land. If you dont pay your rent, you get evicted. I guess you could argue that being ostracized is better than going to jail, but thats kinda moot.
You cant just decide not to pay rent, so if you want to stop your options are 1) Move (find a new place), or 2) convince the landlord to change the lease.
I don't think you believe this. Moving to a different country is not an option, it is an undue burden. You're saying that if I don't like something I should change every aspect of my life and move to, say, Britain. But you would NEVER say that if I had trouble finding food because of USSR-style government policy, I should just move. You would also not say that for a relatively small grievance, like schools having shitty union policy and the teachers are a little worse than a thousand miles down the road. You would say the government needs to fix its shit and moving is an undue burden.
Moving short distances can be realistic, and in a law market it would likely be a facet. But that's already a pretty big burden and you're asking for something far greater.
If its important enough to you, yes, you should. Isnt this what libertarians say about businesses? Dont raise taxes, else business will move to another country where its less burdensome? They cant choose to ignore the tax, and neither can you. Its leave, change, or deal with it.
If you have trouble finding food in one country, why in the hell wouldnt you move to one where food was easier to come by? You'd rather starve to death? Thats not a wise choice. Bring your family and friends with you, its better than dying. Seek a better life for yourself. Our country was built on people doing just that, it continues to have immigrents (legal or not) who are doing just that.
And yeah, I would say that for the school issue too. Your options havent changed. 1) Move, 2) change it, or 3) deal with it. You dont get to ignore it. I know homeowners who have to deal with HOA's. There are several places near me that do not have HOAs. What are the homeonwers to do? 1) Move, 2) Change it, or 3) deal with it. There is no "ignore it" option.
America has some specific things that are special about it though. We place heavy limits on the government, and what it can do. We cant have laws that benefit whites only, for example. But we can have laws that benefit the poor, because you can always bring yourself down to their level if you wanted to.
Sidestep.
I AM trying to do what I can just by trying to get people to look at these things differently. There is no "or you could just pay..." if that paying actually makes things worse.
Change is hard. But if change fails, you arent the one who gets to decide that their situation is worse, and then act on that assumption. The courts invalidate laws, not you. Your option is still move, change, or comply.
When was this? When did I agree that pot should be illegal, filling in wetlands on your own property should be illegal, prostitution should be illegal, education should become a pseudo-monopoly, or companies should be denied access to building new internet infrastructure? Of the million things I didn't agree to, how many of them will change during my lifetime? One? Two? Three at most? But what if I were able to choose them the same way I can choose which store to shop at? Isn't it reasonable to think we'd see hundreds and thousands of those things change to meet demand no differently than how every other facet of our lives that has been market-ized has done so?
These are the rules of the land. Move, change, or comply. You agree to the rules by living here, just as you agree to any country's rules by living there, and any business's rules by entering their doors.
Why should change be hard? We wouldn't suggest this in our personal lives. The notion that change in government should be hard appears to emerge from the incredible power that government has, which means that if change is easy, it is easy to make bad change. This doesn't mean change should be hard, it means giving an entity too much power is bad.
Change is hard because it effects hundreds of millions of people. Change is easier when it only effects you, but even then...its still hard. Choosing where the best place to work, where to live, who to marry. Change isnt something that comes easy, and for a country its magnified by the millions.
But the change isnt hard because government is oppressing you. Its hard because you need to get people to agree with you. Thats not a states thing, thats a persuasion thing.
---------
How do you respond to the notion that by living here, you are accepting this places laws? You cannot chose to pay half of your meal at a restauraunt. You cant choose to live in an apartment, without paying your rent. You cant tell the electric company that you're going to start investigating and making improvements to their systems without their permission.
Its the government's land.
|