If the government stops providing services, should citizens stop paying taxes?#EvanPoll #poll
Senza categoria
4
Post
3
Autori
0
Visualizzazioni
-
-
@evan No. There is a moral obligation to obey legitimate authority, whether it serves your interests or not.
(Of course other moral obligations may override that of obeying the law; one must choose the least bad option in a clash.)
-
undefined Evan Prodromou ha condiviso questa discussione
-
@evan No. There is a moral obligation to obey legitimate authority, whether it serves your interests or not.
(Of course other moral obligations may override that of obeying the law; one must choose the least bad option in a clash.)
@mpjgregoire That's an interesting point! So, is there a point where the social contract breaks down? Is it 1 year? 10 years? How long is it before the entity that claims to be governing your jurisdiction, but doesn't provide the services a government is supposed to, can no longer be held as legitimate and deserving of your obedience (and tax dollars)?
-
@evan taxes aren't conditional on services. The govt will be very happy to recover the taxes and may use violence to do so. So people should keep paying them.
Federally, taxes don't fund the spending on services - they create money first, and then tax back only a portion, much later. The ends don't meet, not paying will make no difference to the govt, since they don't need money.
If the govt stops providing services, the best way to fix that is to work as slowly as possible.
Feed RSS
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@aud @SnoopJ I'm personally of the mind that war is the failure case of civilization, and a lot of things have to go wrong for it to happen. Violent conflict never starts with ", and now there is war". Wars are something we should collectively and universally be ashamed of.
-
@aud @SnoopJ ok I'm reliably informed in another reply thread that Saddam Hussein got executed etc so that's like 1 conflict where one of the top level objectives in the Quest Log got checked off (disregarding you know everything else about that war). I knew I was forgetting something.
-
@SnoopJ@hachyderm.io @aeva@mastodon.gamedev.place (which is, you know... I feel like I am agreeing 100% with all your positions and morals here, if I'm not mistaken?)
-
@aeva@mastodon.gamedev.place @SnoopJ@hachyderm.io ah, yeah, no, you're right, sorry. I knew that wasn't what you're asking (re: Halliburton)... my actual answer to your question was there (I think, or at least, I tried to, anyway), which was "no, none of them".
I get that "victory" is a subjective thing but I'm pretty sure I'd say basically all of the military actions the US has taken (that I can think of) have been failures, and usually not because of unit strength or combat tactics but because of completely misguided reasoning and long term planning. Even Bin Laden: yeah, he's dead. And.. what did that actually accomplish? etc, etc. I'm not crying any tears over him or anything, but... well, he wasn't exactly in power or capable of much by that point.
I think a lot of things are likely to involve, or end in, violence, but I am also highly suspicious that it is capable of achieving "victory" except in very specific circumstances. This probably starts touching on "just war" theory and all that, now that I think about it.
-
-
@L_Alberto articolo 34 punto 7
-
@beeoproblem oh right I forgot about saddam, hahahaha wow ok that meets the criteria, thank you
-
@aeva the US has been pretty good at the war part of war and godawful at the nation building part after from what I've seen of recent history.
Desert Storm 1 and the war(s) in the Balkans went about as well as can be expected for the areas from what I can tell. Iraq 2 became a disaster pretty much immediately after the us "won" and drove Saddam's government from power. It's pretty clear that the powers that be were completely blinded by ideology and naked greed.
![Asta [AMP]](https://sharkey-data.sjc1.vultrobjects.com//webpublic-5849bbaa-f124-4380-b11c-f0975c01ae62.png "Asta [AMP]"){kind=avatar}
