I'm not terribly interested in collecting more. I'm interested in a system which is as sensitive as possible to the people's intent. Everybody feels a consumption tax. And they have some control over how much they pay. Combine that with a balanced budget amendment and we only spend what people are willing to fund. That's how it ought to be. Done properly, that too would shrink the tax code industry.
I'm still missing the point, at least whatever one you're attempting to articulate. Star Trek does not anticipate or portray the singularity you reference. And the whole point of the singularity is that we can't conceive of its implications.
This is an analysis of art, a modern human expression informed by modern human ideas. What's absurd is asserting that political philosophy is not among those influences. Equally absurd is imposing a recent technological concept upon stories written between 1966 and 2005.
Interesting point. I didn't know Muslims did that. It would be fun to watch Schofield's facial muscles twitch as he tried to reconcile his nanny statist impulse with his "sensitivity" to multiculturalism.
Shouldn't these anti-circumcision proponents be obligated to produce a preponderance of evidence that circumcised males have been harmed? And shouldn't at least SOME of that evidence come in the form of circumcised males who object to the fact they were circumcised? Is there such a person? I have never heard anyone complain about having been circumcised as an infant. How then can we point to any victims? I mean, when someone is abused as a child, they know it. They grow up aware of the fact it was abuse. They go into therapy if they have the means. Is anyone losing sleep over their infant circumcision? Is anyone not able to get a job or otherwise function in society? What is the problem this restriction would solve?
The ambiguity of all those questions tells me this is an issue best left to the individual, i.e. the parents. It's nobody else's business.
They may not care about the morality. But they don't care about competency either. The only thing they care about is fulfilling their sense of purpose, namely forcing others into a Utopian mold.
The purpose of dragging the Left to the moral argument is not to convince them, but to wake up the "independents" to the real stakes.
Indeed. We must always judge an idea separate from its messenger.
I've just scratched the surface of Rand's work. I'm reading Atlas Shrugged right now. I recently read Anthem. I've heard of couple of lectures on Objectivism, the most recent by Ayn Rand Institute president Yaron Brook who I met at the Tea Party Patriots American Policy Summit in Phoenix.
I can tell you this much. I am not now, nor will I ever be, an Objectivist. However, many of Rand's observations are right on the money. I welcome advocates of her philosophy to the Tea Party and believe it will only enrich the movement. My problems with Objectivism are metaphysical and involve the personal matter of religion. What Rand has to say about government, what she has to say about the public sphere and our relationships as neighbors, is right on.
No, it does not depend upon our feelings. A public good benefits us all equally. I am as vested in the continued existence of our nation as you are. That defense could not occur aside from the mechanism of government. If there was no state, there would be no national defense. National defense is therefore a public good. Health care services do not benefit us all equally. If you are sick, you need care. That care can be provided by you and other voluntary contributors. If there was no state, you could still receive care. It is therefore not a public good.
We can debate the extent of the military budget. The fact remains it is proper to have one. My point is that is not proper to publicly finance individual consumption.
There is no such thing as "public health." Individuals get sick and injured, requiring individual care. Like any product or service, that care has value and must be provided by someone. There are three ways this can occur. You can subsist on your own means and ability. You can trade something of value for the care you need. Or you can force someone to provide what you require. Government-enforced entitlement programs, by their very nature, are the third option. That is why I indeed advocate a phase out of Medicare and all other forms of coercive wealth redistribution.