What do you call it if a society fails to do what is needed to perserve itself?  Or they end up going into deficit spending to do such, without raising sufficient tax revenue?

There is claims of taxation as being theft.  But what do you call someone who can pay for something that is needed, and benefits from it, but lives in a state that borrows to pay for it?

Well, deficit spending is taxation, so deficit spending is still theft. You and I have very different ideas of what is needed for society to preserve itself. All the Government needs to do, particlarly the Federal Government, is protect our liberties, and defend our borders.

Now, of course, these things still cost money, and I argue that all taxation is theft. So how do I propose the Government raises this money? Well, through a number of avenues:

 - The Federal Government still owns a vast amount of land, which it could sell or lease.
 - Tariffs, duties, and fees. While I still argue that these are immoral, they're not as bad as, say, income tax, as they are voluntary and (in the case of fees), one-off. The ONLY purpose of these taxes, however, should be to maximise the revenues of the tax. A tariff on imported goods, for example, should not be a protectionist action - the tariff should be set at the level where it has the least effect on the action, whilst generating the most tax (or any level below that point).
 - I also see no problem with the Government running businesses. As long as the business is run off its own resources (not backed by tax money), and the Government doesn't give it any unfair advantages in the market place. So, the Government can continue running the post office, but it must be on a model of profitability, and there must be no laws preventing other companies from performing exactly the same functions. This is a tedious option, however, as I fear it could easily be abused.

When a society has a set of values it seeks to uphold, say derived from natural law, reason, and other things such as science or tradition, and it fails to uphold these values, and things collapse, then how is that not robbing from the future?  If it isn't theft it is certainly negligence.  I don't say that the solution need to be that the government does it, but the society as a whole needs to do it.  Now, one can debate what these values are, and what the state of society needs to be, but it is still there.  Part of that is to ask what the net outcome of certain things happening, like say homeless people dying in the streets, or crime running rampant, or a civil war breaking out, or even polution, with businesses creating poluted pools of toxic chemicals in areas accessible by the public.  To not ask such questions on what the values should be and the net outcome of ignoring things, is negligence on the very least.

Boom! There we go. I've always argued that we have a moral obligation to help those less fortunate, or to do what we can to protect the environment. I agree, it is negligent to ignore those things. But we have to be careful about forcing others to do things they don't want to. I say, do what you can, for the causes that you support, and try to convince others to help or donate.

In a society where the fire protection was private, most would buy the fire insurance. For those that didn't because they didn't want to, so be it. For those who didn't because they couldn't afford it, well there could be a charity that provdided fire protection for those people, using donations to buy resources, and volunteers to provide the service. If you cared so greatly about this cause, you could either donate your money to help buy new materials, or you, yourself, could volunteer for the force.

What I don't like are the people who think "I'm so holy, I can donate other people's money".

I doubt the ability of individuals to participate in such a way meaningfully. I am of the view that it's easier to get a relatively small group of people all thinking the right way (e.g., the government) than to just sit around and hope the average person will awaken to the appropriate moral obligations.

Of course its easier to persuade the Government than it is to go through the correct channels, which is why everybody does it, no matter what their agenda. Just because I see it as other people's moral obligations, doesn't mean I'm right. There are causes that I care about much more than others, and I'm sure you care about causes which are of little interest to me.  Should we both lobby the Government so that you have to pay towards the causes you don't care about, while I have to pay for causes that you don't.

There are also areas where most people would agree to assistance, namely homelessness and hunger. It is my belief that without Government intervention, those two problems wouldn't be as bad as what they currently are. It is also my belief that if we had a Government that only stuck to protecting the natural law, that the vast majority of people would have much greater disposable incomes, of which they could then donate more of to these causes, to institutions that are far effective at handing out aid than the Government.

It is my argument that not only is state aid not morally just, it also isn't the most effective means of tackling issues to do with areas such as homelessness, hunger, healthcare.

I am of the belief that the welfare state exists in western nations (at least America) to placate middle class guilt over those less fortunate.  The problems of the poor and needy are there, and politicians say something needs to be done, so they get votes.  Also, such is pitched as a secure safety net.  And the mass will of good intentions becomes government programs they don't change, don't really change anything, but supposedly make people feel something is being done.  

But, in light of this, I will also end up saying here that if the problems aren't tended to, they will rise.  If blocks of people decide to not pay for fire insurance, then you have the entire block go on fire, and so on.  And you can't just let things in place go, because it doesn't promise anything.  And it is all good talk to say about what one personally believes.  What actually difference will be done to make it so?

"When the public treasury becomes the public troth, the people will send to Washington those who give them the most money" - Jefferson. Just because people vote for things, doesn't make them right.

Sorry, if blocks of people don't pay for fire insurance, and then the entire block goes on fire... it is their fault for not buying fire insurance. Why the hell should I have to pay for it?

Your last couple of sentences make no sense.

Is the message of Occupy working?  Check this out:

And details on what Frank said here:

Really?  MSNBC?  Can it be more one sided than that?  They are more left than Fox News is right.  And Bashir?  Can't believe that dope still has a job.  And how old is this?  We all said here that at first it may have had an impact but now everyone seems to either hate them, they have an unclear message, or the hippies and anarchists have taken over their voice.