The "social contract."

I have three simple rules by which I try to live my life...

1) If you want to be left alone by me, please return the courtesy: As long as I'm not shooting kiddie porn or building bombs in my basement, my life and the way I choose to live it is none of your business. Likewise, I will defend your right to live however you see fit with every breath I have, as long as you acknowledge that your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose.

2) Keep your **** in your own box: You break it, you buy it. Do whatever the hell you want as long as it doesn't violate #1 above and neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Don't make your choices my problem. Where have I heard that before?

3) Don't be an *******: Wait you turn at the store, in line at the movies, or at the border. Be courteous, hold the door open for people, smile and say hello! Don't make demands of me or your neighbors; don't entitle yourself to my stuff. That would make you an *******. Don't be one.

3.5) OK, I know said three... but this one is a bonus rule: FOR PETE'S SAKE UNLESS YOU ARE ACTIVELY PASSING, STAY THE HELL OUT OF THE LEFT LANE!!!!!

Curious to hear you thoughts. Try not to get too pedantic. You know who you are. LOL.

 

I understand this is an uncomfortable topic for the authoritarians.

 

I wish more people lived by the same rules.

 

The totalitarian types don't mean that YOU can dictate the terms of a social contract, but rather they want to dictate it and then say that you either accept it, or you are not allowed to be part of society. That's when the gulags are opened for business.

 

We'd need far less government were that the case.

 

Indeed comrade. Read: Homo Sovieticus.

 

I generally have no problem with any of that, especially 3.5, I am curious though. When you say don't make demands of you or your neighbors or pick your pocket, what does that mean?

 

Sure. It means don't demand I pick up your slack because you exercised poor judgment. A good example would be all the homeowners and financial institutions we bailed out in 2008/2009.

 

Sorry originally that was a bit of a gotcha question. So I'll ask a genuine one instead. What's the difference between picking your pocket and just government expenditures?

 

There's nothing "social" about that contract.

 

Does it pass this question?:

Does that expenditure proportionally serve the tax payers who funded it equally?

If the answer is no, or you have to do cart wheels to get to the validation, then it's considered "picking pockets"

 

Fair question. Taxation should exist solely to fund the necessary and appropriate functions of government in a nation of free men. For other kinds of societies, we can assume taxation for a variety of reasons from equalizing wealth to enriching the monarch and everything in between. Picking my pocket would constitute excessive confiscation of my wealth for purposes other than those necessary and appropriate to the maintenance of a free state.

 

Explain, please.

 

That would be all well and good, if there were about 100 people in this country. In a nation so densely populated, libertarian “ideals” are impractical and unworkable.

 

Only because we don’t have the stomach to hold ourselves accountable. There’s no reason we need three million pages of laws.

 

How would that work? For instance the places with the highest amount of crime tend to be the poorest and they don't really pay federal income tax. Are they left to fend for themselves?

Ok but how do you define necessary and appropriate and what functions of government do you think meet that criteria?

My main objection honestly is to the phrase "pick your pocket" which I suspect simply means policies I don't agree with.

 

Why not make those communities responsible for cultivating a culture that reduces crime?

There are literally thousands of communities in rural areas, often fairly poor, with little or no police coverage.

Why is the responsibility automatically transferred to other people to fix that communities issues?

 

Bingo!

 

Ok but then what do they need you for?

Yes and generations of poverty, I'm confused is this your sales pitch?

Because that's the trade off for the masses to conform to rules.

 

I agree with what you wrote and almost had to go a**hole on a guy at a wedding dance this weekend. Waiting my turn at the bar with my money out and a guy comes up next to me sees I am waiting politely for my turn and when the bartender get done with her consumer try to get her attention. She knew I was next so she ignored him and asked me what I want, so all is good. But what kind of selfish dick does that?

 

Pretty simple - does the spend protect and defend individual liberty or does it not? If the former, then I consider that the cost of living in a civilized society and am happy to pay my fair share*. If the latter — say bailing out irresponsible borrowers and malfeasant banks — I would likely consider that picking my pocket.

*Fair share = all taxpayers pay the same rate, no exceptions. And almost everyone with any income is a taxpayer.

 

no, they are simply unworkable in a populated nation. On a deserted island with about 5 people? it would be possible, but human nature would likely preclude it.

 

Ok, but I'm still not sure how "pick my pocket" doesn't simply mean laws I don't agree with. And while I didn't agree with the bank bail out either, I feel like that's a poor example because there's enough evidence to suggest that the financial institutions and ratings agencies were knowingly committing fraud. They just were never held accountable which was one of the first great failures of Obama. But other programs like medicare or snap that are championed by representatives voted on by the people those aren't theft. Those are simply votes you lost. It doesn't matter that you want a fundamentally smaller government than me, you still wish to impose it and the cost of it on me as I do mine on you. In that sense you're no more or less a "thief" than me. Now we can go about them in fundamentally different ways. I can try to impose it on you by force and deny you free will. That would be a dictatorship. Or we can agree to vote and compromise and accept that we won't always agree on the right direction but we will allow each other a voice and work in the general direction that most of us agree on. In light of such a reality as we have now is then "picked my pocket" not the same as "vote I lost"?

What kind of fair tax are we talking? Income based or sales tax?

 

I am simply sharing my philosophy, you are free to make of it what you will. I consider taking money from people who earned it and giving it to people who didn’t to be involuntarily confiscation. Or pickpocketing to use a more colorful term.

As for taxation, I believe the fairest system would be a federal excise tax with almost zero exemptions and deductions. You pay your taxes at the point of sale. You keep every penny you earn, and that figure is a private matter — nobody’s business unless you choose to disclose it. That would include a literal decimation of the IRS and shredding of most of the 75,000-page tax code.This tax would be the only legal tax in the land, with revenues distributed to the states by number of congressional districts. California would get mo chedda than Oregon, for example.

 

You clearly cannot connect the dots.

You want other people to foot the bill to police communities are who stricken with generational poverty... yet ignore that many other communities are poor, have no police, and don't have the crime statistics.

Because it doesn't have to do with funding... that is just your excuse to reach into other people's pockets and retrieve the money like Robin Hood. It has to do with culture, something money can't fix.