From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun Jul 07 2002 - 00:27:34 MDT
Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 11:56 PM 7/5/02 -0700, Reason wrote:
>
>
>>Why is it ok in your book for the majority to force the minority to pay for
>>or do something that they don't want?
>
It is difficult but consider this as a first possibility, having
everyone pay for something only some believe should be done is
justified iff the potential gain/loss of doing whatever on that
sort of scale it is is greater than the gain/loss of only those
persuaded doing it. If there are classes of problems that
cannot be tackled well by only those convinced of the need, then
those classes of problems would not be satisfactorly addressed.
If they are serious enough and especially effect all then a
pretty strong case could be made that all should contribute.
>
> It's a difficult issue, but consider:
>
> When this line of thought is applied to taxation, it seems to be assumed
> that teeny weeny slices of your tax payment is being applied to whatever
> programs you detest: mandatory traffic lights, state supported schooling,
> cancer research, nuclear power or its regulation, water fluoridation,
> bridges, etc. But mightn't you, an individual, support some of these
> measures while disliking some of the others (while other taxpayers feel the
> same way about different measures)? Might you not assuage your pangs of
> dispossession by regarding the share you pay as going preferentially to
> *your* favorite scam, and theirs as paying for what they favor?
>
Well, my biggest gripe with taxes is that those "teeny slices"
add up to over 60% of my income! I have a very difficult time
that believing I should devote 60% of my renumeration to
purposes chosen by others. There just aren't that many people
who have a better idea how to spend my money imho.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:12 MST