Quote:
You have said earlier that you would be willing to put more money toward education. Do you know that there are thousands of people out there that don't have kids in school, who moan about having to pay taxes towards education that they supposedly receive no benefit from? The education program is already underfunded, and if you had what you wanted, even more funding would be lost. These people, of course, are ignoring the larger value of having an educated society.
I'm well aware Fribur, as I pay a Mello-Roos tax where I live. People moan about taxes for all sorts of things they don't use I'm sure. People probably moan about having to pay for prisons even though they may never be incarcerated, so I'm not sure where you're going with that. As for education, I don't know for certain, and I don't see how you can be either, that if people are allowed to choose whether or not to fund education, that the current funding levels are going to decrease. How do you know they won't increase? The reason education is underfunded isn't because we don't pay enough collectively in taxes, it's because not enough is budgeted towards education by the government. If citizens were allowed to vote more where there tax dollars go, such as the Propsition initiatives in California, then it's possible there would be more funds available rather than less for education. I also wonder how you feel about someone like Oprah spending millions of her dollars starting up a school in Africa, or Bill Gates donating millions on combating disease in Third World countries. I'm sure there are people who would grumble that they should spend more of their money taking care of our own poor and uneducated, but again, I feel like it's their money, they can donate it to whatever charitable causes they choose.
Quote:
You can restate it anyway you wish, but you are still talking about picking and choosing who gets care based on their choices. If we allowed everyone in the country to make those kinds of decisions about their tax dollars, you think Medicare would still be a functioning entity? "Hold on sir, I don't know if we can treat your or not-- let's see if we have any funding given to us by people who are ok with funding your care."
Do you think our road system would be what it is today? "Hi sir, we was wondering if we could use your tax dollars to help fund an Interstate highway in Montana." "What? Fuck no! I'll never drive on a road in Montana; you can't have my money!" Of course, this person is ignoring the trucking industry that brings him food on those roads every day, etc.
Do you think our National Parks would remain? Preserves?
Do you think police departments in rural areas would be able to remain funded? Fire? Is anarchy in the countryside what you would like?
Do you think college financial aid would continue to be given? "I don't want to pay for some other kid's education! My own kid should get that money!" or "I don't even have kids!" This is similar to the education problems at lower levels if you get what you want.
You make it sound like taxes are needed for all of those things......did parks, roads, etc. not exist before the advent of taxes? You think roads in Montana are paid by citizens of California? You think the people of Montana wouldn't want to pay to keep their roads maintained? Did parks not exist prior to Teddy Roosevelt? Do parks have to be "National" to count? Don't certain individuals such as Rockefeller donate land to set up parks? How is your local park funded? For that matter, do you know how you fund your local police and fire departments? Because it strikes me you might not, considering you are citing "rural" departments, where if there is not enough funding, then there may be voluntary forces. As for education, see above.
Quote:
My point? One of the vital things that a government provides is the resources to devote toward the collective good of society. While obviously there are exceptions, individual needs and desires often contradict the group's needs and desires. Governments stand as a way in which we overcome that tendency for our own greater good.
So you see why I think you believe in governmental paternalism, and I don't know why you take umbrage at that. If I'm off the mark, I'm off, but surely you can see how I can draw that conclusion. Let me just replace "government" in your sentence with "parent", individual with "child(ren)" and society with "family", and let's see if you can see what I see:
My point? One of the vital things that a [parent] provides is the resources to devote toward the collective good of [the family]. While obviously there are exceptions, [a child's] needs and desires often contradict the [family's] needs and desires. [Parents] stand as a way in which we overcome that tendency for our [family's] greater good.So if you still want to come out saying I'm off base when I say you want the government to take care of it's citizens like a parent wants to take care of a child, then maybe you can clarify your position.
Quote:
How many people would lose their jobs if alcohol testing were added to mandatory drug tests? It is a central nervous system depressant, afterall.
I think I read recently somewhere on CNN.com that about 13% of our work force uses illegal drugs (the biggest group being marijuana, I think around 8%), and about 13% of our work force drinks on a regular basis. I may be off on the exact percentage, but I remember it being above 10% and under 20%.
Quote:
What about people who drink alcohol on a regular basis?
And I thought Sijandi you would have already answered your own question. I thought you believed people should be held accountable, but free to do what they want unless they aren't harming anyone? Then by that reason you should be able to drink on a regular basis, but if you're drinking inteferes with your ability to work, then you should be fired; your decreased productivity would be economically harming your company and/or your employer.