From: KPJ (kpj@sics.se)
Date: Mon Dec 14 1998 - 08:40:23 MST
KPJ [kpj@sics.se] wrote:
|I for one have never donated one single monetary unit. And nobody I
|know do.
|(Where are these great spenders? I would like a donation. :)
<mark@unicorn.com>:
|Isn't it interesting that the people least likely to donate to charity are
|the "caring" lefties? They "care" too little to actually hand over their
|hard earned money, but instead want the rest of us to hand ours over.
It appears as if you assume I belong the "caring lefties".
If you do, you are in error. I belong to neither cathegory.
|This isn't the first time someone has come up with this "but if the
|government didn't force me to I wouldn't get around to donating money to
|all the causes I care so much about" argument on the Net, because it seems
|to be one of the few half-rational arguments these people can come up with.
It is irrelevant that that question had appeared before.
The question *I* raised was another (albeit related) one:
"If the govt did not take money from the population
and give part of that money to a handicapped person,
then how would ve get the money to dehandicap verself?"
Postulates:
a. I do not give money to beggars ("causes") today.
b. If the State stopped taxing, (a) would still hold.
c. People in general tend to be slow to change.
Conclusion:
IF people in general react as I do
THEN (1) ve would get less resources
ELSE (2) ve would not get less resources.
Take (c) into the computation, and
I conclude that (1) is the more probable outcome of the change.
Those who feel that situation (1) does not match their ethics might wish
to address it. I have no opinion on that matter.
|Of course there's no rational argument for extending taxation to the rest
|of us just because they want Big Brother to come around and beat them up
|if they can't be bothered to hand over money.
It may be true, but the statement is not relevant to the current issue.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:59 MST