steven787 said:
My position has never changed, since I've been on VGC. In all reality true liberty can never exist because humans will result to killing and enslaving each other unless force is threatened. You can go into my post history, you'll find something to this effect: Rich people get more out of the system, because a secure, stable system allows them to keep their wealth. When the rich and educated do not take responsibility for that system, it is their lack of foresight that caused the mob comes to take power by force. Money does not equal liberty. Money is just one thing that we are allowed to pursue in a free society. Just like everything else, when we use that freedom we are expected to contribute to the system. Money just gets more attention because we can see it, feel it, and count it. When we use free speech we are expect to not incite violence or openly display pornography. When we buy a gun we are expected to not walk openly with it. When we travel we are expected to leave weapons behind and act civily. When we want to openly protest in a group we are expected to tell the authorities ahead of time so they can provide security for the group and for potential opposition. Liberty and living in a free country doesn't mean that we don't have compulsory obligations. No one is forcing someone to become rich, they choose to be rich and know that they will have to pay more taxes on each bracket; in return they get to enjoy more of the fruit of the free nation. The reason why taxes aren't paid below poverty is that no one should be enslaved; if someone is below poverty and paying income taxes than that portion of their time is enslavement to the state. Once we are out of the poverty level, we can and should contribute; but no one can be depended on to do the right thing so they have to put a gun to our heads... that's human civilization, conform or lose what liberty you have for the sake of the group. Not very fun, but it works and the modern West is the freest any group of any humans have ever been, if you take into account the freedom provided by the society. What does any of that have to do with letting people marry who they want? My statement, "If liberty isn't guaranteed for all, then no one truly has it." wasn't meant as some crazy utopian rule, like my libertarian friends will spout off. It's just a reminder to put everything into perspective.
Also you're argument does not follow. Even if the political theory is flawed, how do you justify taking away one person's rights by pointing out other rights taken away? By your own statements, you should always be on the side of liberty. I'm always on the side of what I think will work.
|
Your quote "Money does not equal liberty" is inaccurate. Well, money does not in itself. If I were able to acquire it with no effort, it would not represent my time. I unfortunately, have not learned that trick, so for me (and hundreds of millions of other americans) money means time. My time. If all taxes were used for, was to run a government (pay for roads, military, police, fire, judges,congress, etc..), then asking me to pay that is not an infringement on my liberties.
When you create a social program however (like healthcare), and I am required to pay for some else's service with money I am required to earn. I am working in the service of others forcibly. I become an indentured servant. That is a loss of liberty.
So two ways to fix this.
- No social programs funded by the government. (Aside from education, as that one is profitable. Educated people make more money, and thus pay more taxes)
- flat tax with no exceptions.
Either one of those goes into service, then no longer is the government taking away my liberties (with respect to taking my time and giving it to someone else)
As for your comment that no one is forcing you to become rich (and 1/3 of what I make goes to the government, and I am anything but rich), is the same argument that no one is forcing a man to marry a woman.
You say not having same sex marriage is a loss of liberty. I could say that's true only if a gay man was not allowed to marry a woman, and straight men were allowed to marry men.
Every man in this country has the same right with respect to marriage. Every one of then can marry a woman. If you don't want to (for whatever reason), that's not a loss of liberty.
There you go, I used your philosophy about rich and poor, and applied it to marriage. It sounds just as stupid there too.
