Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Problem is, I don't think you can present this as a moral question while acknowledging that you find some point along the continuum away from the zero-point to be acceptable. He's left with an "it's immoral if you want to spend more than I want to spend" position. If he wants to declaim that taxation with the explicit goal of taking from one to simply give to another in order to equalize resources is immoral, that's fine, but that's not the argument that I saw. He's still then left with the "we choose to spend on a common-good basis" argument, and all he can argue is that he has a better idea of what constitutes "common good".
|
I think there is a discernible point of division for some where those who receive private, individual benefits receive the same merely as beneficiaries of a government-mandated insurance scheme are separated from those who receive the same based on a contractual give-and-take between government and the beneficiary.
Gov't employees, military etc., gov't contractors all are providing a service. The others merely benefit from a rigged insurance scheme (or lottery). Along this rather simplistic line of thinking, I'm having trouble characterizing school kids.
Hello
